Anti Local Traffic Neighbourhood campaign in SE London

[Richard_Fairhurst]

Is the local election for Birmigham not due next month? Which figures would you expect to lose their seats over this?

Quite. There's a local election in Oxford next month. The LTN trials in East Oxford have exercised the frothers in the comments section of the Oxford Mail about how it's inconvenienced their 93-year old disabled grandmother who needs to buy a fridge from Currys and transport a load of bricks every day. Let's see whether this is actually reflected in people voting for anti-LTN candidates.

[fras]

Funny, isn't it ? Everybody wants to live in an LTN but don't want them anywhere else. It's a bit like 20 mph limits.

[Bryn666]

Funny, isn't it ? Everybody wants to live in an LTN but don't want them anywhere else. It's a bit like 20 mph limits.

Indeed.

Personally I really have no issue with them being anywhere people want them. Nor do I have an issue with 20 limits on my route to work. Perhaps that's because I see beyond my car bonnet and understand the bigger picture.

[fras]

Funny, isn't it ? Everybody wants to live in an LTN but don't want them anywhere else. It's a bit like 20 mph limits.

Indeed.

Personally I really have no issue with them being anywhere people want them. Nor do I have an issue with 20 limits on my route to work. Perhaps that's because I see beyond my car bonnet and understand the bigger picture.

And would the traffic move any faster than 20 mph on your normal route to work ? I suspect not, (lol)

[Bryn666]

Funny, isn't it ? Everybody wants to live in an LTN but don't want them anywhere else. It's a bit like 20 mph limits.

Indeed.

Personally I really have no issue with them being anywhere people want them. Nor do I have an issue with 20 limits on my route to work. Perhaps that's because I see beyond my car bonnet and understand the bigger picture.

And would the traffic move any faster than 20 mph on your normal route to work ? I suspect not, (lol)

Depends which bit. On my street people regularly ignore the 20 limit despite parked vehicles and children being present. Whereas on the 40 limit East Lancs I'm lucky to get beyond 15 anyway.

Of course if I take a train to work it does 50-70 all the way almost... until it gets stuck at Castlefield.

[Chris5156]

Funny, isn't it ? Everybody wants to live in an LTN but don't want them anywhere else. It's a bit like 20 mph limits.

Yes, we all want to live in a peaceful setting unspoilt by traffic noise and fumes. In an ideal world everyone else would also kindly stay at home when I need to drive somewhere

[Micro The Maniac]

Funny, isn't it ? Everybody wants to live in an LTN but don't want them anywhere else. It's a bit like 20 mph limits.

Virtually everyone I know who is affected by LTNs where they live is anti them...

Personally I really have no issue with them being anywhere people want them.

Perhaps if the consultation occurred BEFORE they are imposed, then we would have evidence to support your assertions... on the contrary the evidence is that power-crazed officials spot free cash and whoosh. Just as a raft of measures were put in place to (ahem) maintain social distancing (/ahem) during the early days of covid remain - again without consultation.

But I agree... where there is a clear demand (and not just from a vocal minority) for an LTN then so be it.

[Chris Bertram]

Funny, isn't it ? Everybody wants to live in an LTN but don't want them anywhere else. It's a bit like 20 mph limits.

Virtually everyone I know who is affected by LTNs where they live is anti them...

Especially people who live in the HTN that inevitable develops immediately outside the LTN, but which is never mentioned in the glossy brochure ...

[Patrick Harper]

Bryn's argument seems to be that victims of LTN's deserve to be p****d regardless of whether the schemes have the positive impacts that their supporters purport them to have.

[rhyds]

Funny, isn't it ? Everybody wants to live in an LTN but don't want them anywhere else. It's a bit like 20 mph limits.

Virtually everyone I know who is affected by LTNs where they live is anti them...

Personally I really have no issue with them being anywhere people want them.

Perhaps if the consultation occurred BEFORE they are imposed, then we would have evidence to support your assertions... on the contrary the evidence is that power-crazed officials spot free cash and whoosh. Just as a raft of measures were put in place to (ahem) maintain social distancing (/ahem) during the early days of covid remain - again without consultation.

But I agree... where there is a clear demand (and not just from a vocal minority) for an LTN then so be it.

Genuine question: Has an LTN (or indeed any traffic scheme) consultation exercise ever actually led to a substantive change to said scheme? Also, has any consultation ever offered the option of "retain the current position"?

[WHBM]

Of course if I take a train to work it does 50-70 all the way almost... until it gets stuck at Castlefield.

That's a bit unlikely, when the train from Bryn's home town to (presumably) Manchester has 7 intermediate stops, and takes 51 minutes for the 24 miles, an average of ... 28 mph.

Did someone say "hyperbole" ?

[Chris Bertram]

Bryn's argument seems to be that victims of LTN's deserve to be p****d regardless of whether the schemes have the positive impacts that their supporters purport them to have.

It's becoming clear that creating congestion is part of the strategy. BCC held a consultation session where a council officer stated that he was disappointed by the modal change from car to other forms of transport during phase 1. It hasn't had the effect that BCC wanted.

So he said that they simply had to push harder with Phase 2 to add even more pressure on local residents to move to more active travel.

He freely admitted that congestion was part of the formula – they expected it to be there in the short to medium term.
He said that they'd tried the carrot and now had to use the stick as well (he never actually explained what the carrot was)!

So basically, the aim is to *force* people out of their cars, regardless of the dearth of alternative provision. Again, this isn't mentioned in the glossy brochures. And the chances are that it will not work as anticipated. After all, nothing else has up to this point.

[jnty]

Bryn's argument seems to be that victims of LTN's deserve to be p****d regardless of whether the schemes have the positive impacts that their supporters purport them to have.

It's becoming clear that creating congestion is part of the strategy. BCC held a consultation session where a council officer stated that he was disappointed by the modal change from car to other forms of transport during phase 1. It hasn't had the effect that BCC wanted.

So he said that they simply had to push harder with Phase 2 to add even more pressure on local residents to move to more active travel.

He freely admitted that congestion was part of the formula – they expected it to be there in the short to medium term.
He said that they'd tried the carrot and now had to use the stick as well (he never actually explained what the carrot was)!

So basically, the aim is to *force* people out of their cars, regardless of the dearth of alternative provision. Again, this isn't mentioned in the glossy brochures. And the chances are that it will not work as anticipated. After all, nothing else has up to this point.

Nobody is *forcing* you to do anything unless the council officer is literally sitting next to your driveway with a crowbar in the morning. A reduction in road capacity sometimes causes congestion but it's your choice whether you want to sit in it. Traffic increases also cause congestion, which can have myriad causes from development, nearby roadbuilding or fuel price reductions, but nobody would say that any of these changes "force" people off certain more congested roads - even though it makes them just as unattractive to drive on.

[Bryn666]

Of course if I take a train to work it does 50-70 all the way almost... until it gets stuck at Castlefield.

That's a bit unlikely, when the train from Bryn's home town to (presumably) Manchester has 7 intermediate stops, and takes 51 minutes for the 24 miles, an average of ... 28 mph.

Did someone say "hyperbole" ?

Between stops it hits line speed and that means even using your failed attempt to dump on trains as crap as Northern they are still faster than the average of 17 my trip computer gives when I drive. Don't try and second guess my commuting patterns.

[Bryn666]

Bryn's argument seems to be that victims of LTN's deserve to be p****d regardless of whether the schemes have the positive impacts that their supporters purport them to have.

"victims of LTNs"?

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.

[Patrick Harper]

Bryn's argument seems to be that victims of LTN's deserve to be p****d regardless of whether the schemes have the positive impacts that their supporters purport them to have.

"victims of LTNs"?

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 use the word 'victims' in the sense of people who have reservations about one scheme or another, not all of which will be well-founded (or delivered with emotional restraint) in my opinion...but you're missing the point.

[FosseWay]

Nobody is *forcing* you to do anything unless the council officer is literally sitting next to your driveway with a crowbar in the morning. A reduction in road capacity sometimes causes congestion but it's your choice whether you want to sit in it. Traffic increases also cause congestion, which can have myriad causes from development, nearby roadbuilding or fuel price reductions, but nobody would say that any of these changes "force" people off certain more congested roads - even though it makes them just as unattractive to drive on.

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.

It's the same as the "polluter pays" approach to carbon emissions. If the polluter just pays more, you've got a lose-lose situation. The polluter is miffed that they have to pay more, but you're no better off in terms of actual CO2 emitted. You've got to encourage behavioural change at the same time, and to do that in the transport context, the alternative infrastructure has to exist already.

[Chris Bertram]

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.

It's the same as the "polluter pays" approach to carbon emissions. If the polluter just pays more, you've got a lose-lose situation. The polluter is miffed that they have to pay more, but you're no better off in terms of actual CO2 emitted. You've got to encourage behavioural change at the same time, and to do that in the transport context, the alternative infrastructure has to exist already.

This. Just looking at the local situation, the timing was all wrong. We're due to have a couple of new railway stations, probably next year, running a local service into town. There is already a frequent bus service, but some people simply won't use the bus for a variety of reasons. For some, it's not fast enough (because buses have to stop), for others there are environmental and behavioural reasons, not least the constant aroma of weed on the upper decks of many buses in Birmingham. But a train would be a different proposition - it would (hopefully) be quick and reliable, not to say more comfortable. Car drivers are much more likely to switch to the faster transport on rails than the slower transport still on the same tarmac that they already use.

So, a better time to try new strategies would have been to wait until the train service had bedded in, with a steady level of patronage and established level of service. But no, the government waved wads of cash, said "use it now or lose it" and the council (along with many others in various cities) couldn't wait to get its grubby mitts on the filthy lucre, and we end up with the mess we have now shoehorned into streets that didn't ask for it and with lots of people getting pretty narked off as their road grinds to a halt

As an example of "how not to do it", it's pretty unbeatable. IMHO of course.

[Micro The Maniac]

Between stops it hits line speed and that means even using your failed attempt to dump on trains as crap as Northern they are still faster than the average of 17 my trip computer gives when I drive. Don't try and second guess my commuting patterns.

In that case, disregarding the time spent stationary at unnecessary red traffic lights, stationary behind the bus that stopped dead without signalling, or stationary behind the car turning right that used to have a filter lane but no longer, then I'm averaging quite a good speed.

But averages don't work like that... you can't just ignore the data samples you don't like. And journeys are measured door-to-door.

[Micro The Maniac]

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.