Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists

[Cat Fan]

I don’t own a car - why should I subsidise those that do?

Cars are taking up public space. Why should that be free or subsidised?

I'm not disabled, but I have no problem with my taxes funding benefits for the disabled. I am not sick, but I have no problem funding the NHS. It's a community thing.

Taking up valuable asphalt on the side of the road, yes, but it's not free or subsidised and no one is suggesting it should be.

What we should be doing is everything we can to stop more burning of fossil fuels, because we are living on a dying planet, so taxing low emission cars more heavily is just bad policy.

 

[teuchter]

How about looking at those prices in context of travelcard prices.

An annual bus & tram only travelcard is just under £1k.

An annual travelcard zones 1-3 is just under £2k.

This is what it costs to get around London if you're a public transport user.

Or you can pay just a half/quarter of that to park the most polluting possible private car on the public road.

 

[edcraw]

I'm not disabled, but I have no problem with my taxes funding benefits for the disabled. I am not sick, but I have no problem funding the NHS. It's a community thing.

Not sure people that can’t afford a car subsidising those that can is really the same thing, I’d it?

Taking up valuable asphalt on the side of the road, yes, but it's not free or subsidised and no one is suggesting it should be.

What we should be doing is everything we can to stop more burning of fossil fuels, because we are living on a dying planet, so taxing low emission cars more heavily is just bad policy.

You do realise that ‘zero emission’ vehicles do actually have quite sizeable emissions somewhere don’t you?

 

[sleaterkinney]

The main stated aim is to reduce air pollution/emissions, but the fact they are increasing all emissions categories by such a large amount, even zero/low emissions makes it an obvious cash grab

There’s no such thing as zero emissions, they still use electricity, most of which comes from fossil fuels. It’s a really cheap price to store a car for a year.

 

[Cat Fan]

How about looking at those prices in context of travelcard prices.

An annual bus & tram only travelcard is just under £1k.

An annual travelcard zones 1-3 is just under £2k.

This is what it costs to get around London if you're a public transport user.

Or you can pay just a half/quarter of that to park the most polluting possible private car on the public road.

That's a nonsense comparison. A car owner has to pay tax, MOT, fuel (which is heavily taxed) plus the cost of purchasing or leasing the car in the first place.

If we are going down this silly "pay for what you use" route then the non car owners are receiving deliveries and services via local authority maintained roads that are funded by these fees. So the car owners subsidise the non car owners.

 

[sleaterkinney]

I'm not disabled, but I have no problem with my taxes funding benefits for the disabled. I am not sick, but I have no problem funding the NHS. It's a community thing.

Trashing the planet is the opposite of a community thing ffs.

 

[Cat Fan]

There’s no such thing as zero emissions, they still use electricity, most of which comes from fossil fuels. It’s a really cheap price to store a car for a year.

We're going to transition over to renewables over time, we all need to make the switch at some point if we have any chance of the world not dying a heat death

 

[Hollis]

Interesting that the anti-LTN guy they chose is an anti-vaxxer… seems to be pretty much all of them these days though.

Still can’t see what’s wrong with not wanting all our roads to be over run with cars which is all this boils down to.

Welll you said it yourself "the anti-LTN guy they chose": what makes good radio - having two rather boring people making sensible points about the impacts of LTNs or having the ding-dong they managed to have..

 

[Cat Fan]

You do realise that ‘zero emission’ vehicles do actually have quite sizeable emissions somewhere don’t you?

So does everything, but over the lifetime of the vehicle it's a night and day comparison vs a petrol or diesel, particularly if the govt can make the switch to more renewable power as they have committed to do

 

[Cat Fan]

Plus the council's main objective is air quality and EVs are 10000% better than petrol and diesel on that front. Don't test me with this tyre dust nonsense in a 20mph borough

 

[sleaterkinney]

We're going to transition over to renewables over time, we all need to make the switch at some point if we have any chance of the world not dying a heat death

So we should be dissuading people from car use, yes?

 

[sleaterkinney]

So does everything, but over the lifetime of the vehicle it's a night and day comparison vs a petrol or diesel, particularly if the govt can make the switch to more renewable power as they have committed to do

Everything that uses fossil fuels.

 

[Cat Fan]

So we should be dissuading people from car use, yes?

Yes absolutely, but proportional to the amount of use and the level of harm caused by the emissions. The council's proposals fail on these important tests, Vs e.g. ULEZ which is much better designed.

 

[Cat Fan]

Everything that uses fossil fuels.

No, literally everything that you or I consume has a carbon footprint, fossil fuels are involved somewhere along the chain until we have weaned ourselves off as a global society

 

[sleaterkinney]

Yes absolutely, but proportional to the amount of use and the level of harm caused by the emissions. The council's proposals fail on these important tests, Vs e.g. ULEZ which is much better designed.

It actually is proportional now, whereas before it wasn’t and it’s still miles too cheap. Ulez is pointless, that’s why there’s been no outcry. A Range Rover is compliant.

 

[sparkybird]

Plus the council's main objective is air quality and EVs are 10000% better than petrol and diesel on that front. Don't test me with this tyre dust nonsense in a 20mph borough

It's not just particles from tyres and brake pads, it's the actual road surface as well entering our lungs. Hence why roads have to be resurfaced, tyres and brake pads replaced.
Of course vehicle journeys are essential to all our lives, but can't we at least try to cut or reduce non essential ones?

 

[edcraw]

That's a nonsense comparison. A car owner has to pay tax, MOT, fuel (which is heavily taxed) plus the cost of purchasing or leasing the car in the first place.

Non of these go to the council though. It’s like people saying I’ve paid a million for my house, yet the streets aren’t cleaned properly.

 

[edcraw]

So does everything, but over the lifetime of the vehicle it's a night and day comparison vs a petrol or diesel, particularly if the govt can make the switch to more renewable power as they have committed to do

It really isn’t night and day when you take in the embodied carbon of a car. There is very little reason to have a car in London. It’s a luxury for most that has many negatives and people should pay accordingly.

 

[edcraw]

Plus the council's main objective is air quality and EVs are 10000% better than petrol and diesel on that front. Don't test me with this tyre dust nonsense in a 20mph borough

This is part of their climate emergency strategy so definitely not just about air quality and to dismiss tyre dust is just ridiculous, it’s a huge problem.

 

[alex_]

If we are going down this silly "pay for what you use" route then the non car owners are receiving deliveries and services via local authority maintained roads that are funded by these fees. So the car owners subsidise the non car owners.

Pretty sure the couriers pay tax on petrol and various vehicle taxes.

 

[domestos]

I can also let you know that Lambeth have said quite categorically at several meetings that LTN implementation is not a referendum. They are happening and without APNR exemptions. What residents can influence is the design/location of elements to improve the streetscape.
New LTNs are installed on a trial basis and the decision to make them permanent is basis on if they meet their aims after the monitoring period.
Interesting to note that all trial LTNs have so far gone to permanent IIRC.

Seem to remember it was exactly the same when we got 8.30-6.30 CPZ and areas like Abbeville got 10-12 only

 

[teuchter]

That's a nonsense comparison. A car owner has to pay tax, MOT, fuel (which is heavily taxed) plus the cost of purchasing or leasing the car in the first place.

If we are going down this silly "pay for what you use" route then the non car owners are receiving deliveries and services via local authority maintained roads that are funded by these fees. So the car owners subsidise the non car owners.

I'm looking at it from the point of view of "using communally provided stuff". Streets and pavements, everyone uses. Public transport users use buses, railway networks and so on - but these things are available to everyone. Me using a bus doesn't make that bus space unavailable to someone else. In fact generally, the more people use public transport, the better the service can be.
Now look at a parking space. As soon as it's used to store someone's car, it's unavailable to everyone else. Space that could be used for communally beneficial stuff like bus or bike lanes or street trees is used just for a small number of car owners.
How much a car owner has to spend on other stuff isn't really relevant if looking at things from this point of view. The car owner has to spend money on maintenance and insurance and so on - but so what. That's the consequence of their transport choice. Someone who makes their journey by foot and public transport has to pay for their shoes. Those are their privately owned vehicles. Shoes are cheaper than cars. This is certainly one reason I don't own a car.
Of course you can't really make a direct comparison between the costs. But that's why I suggested it's worth thinking about the annual parking charges "in the context" of things like the cost of annual travelcards. Certainly £40 or even £120 is a tiny amount in comparison. When we are talking about using about 15 square metres of public space pretty much continuously, rather than a seat on a bus for an hour or two each day.

 

[Cat Fan]

It actually is proportional now, whereas before it wasn’t and it’s still miles too cheap. Ulez is pointless, that’s why there’s been no outcry. A Range Rover is compliant.

Spare a thought for Band E, £150 per year increase, which is more than band L. Top quality logic from the council there, way to punish those high polluters.

ULEZ has actually been causing a massive outcry now in the outer boroughs and home counties, even though I agree it doesn't go far enough.

It's not just particles from tyres and brake pads, it's the actual road surface as well entering our lungs. Hence why roads have to be resurfaced, tyres and brake pads replaced.
Of course vehicle journeys are essential to all our lives, but can't we at least try to cut or reduce non essential ones?

Yes I agree 100%. But this is a charge for owning a car but not being fortunate enough to own a garage or driveway, it's nothing to do with how often the car is driven.

Non of these go to the council though. It’s like people saying I’ve paid a million for my house, yet the streets aren’t cleaned properly.

Central govt. still partly funds the council through general taxation

It really isn’t night and day when you take in the embodied carbon of a car. There is very little reason to have a car in London. It’s a luxury for most that has many negatives and people should pay accordingly.

Car ownership is much higher in families with young children, let that be a hint to you on why some people need a car

This is part of their climate emergency strategy so definitely not just about air quality and to dismiss tyre dust is just ridiculous, it’s a huge problem.

If it's not about air quality why do they devote most of the consultation text to talking about air quality

Pretty sure the couriers pay tax on petrol and various vehicle taxes.

Yes but those taxes are too low for all the negative externalities, I want to charge more per mile driven not just flat amounts for owning a car, which is disproportionate.

 

[Cat Fan]

Certainly £40 or even £120 is a tiny amount in comparison. When we are talking about using about 15 square metres of public space pretty much continuously, rather than a seat on a bus for an hour or two each day.

£120 is not a tiny amount, it's more than a lot of people pay for a phone contract.

It depends on the public space, some are in high demand and are crowding out active travel and those should be charged accordingly. Where I live it's a very quiet road (inside LTN) with plenty of space for everyone and regular trees planted already.

As I said before I would support a move to the Brighton and Hove style system, which seems a bit fairer.

 

[sparkybird]

Cat Fan
Very little off street parking in Lambeth in reality, the majority park on street.
Families with young children who can afford a car have them. Less than half of Lambeth residents don't have access to a car. A lot of these will be families with young children. They seem to manage.

 

[edcraw]

Car ownership is much higher in families with young children, let that be a hint to you on why some people need a car.

We managed perfectly well without a car.

Difference of households without children and those with is only 1-8%. Income is a much bigger factor.



People choose to build their lives around having a car and only fair they should pay something towards the negative effect it has on others.

 

[alex_]

£120 is not a tiny amount, it's more than a lot of people pay for a phone contract.

It depends on the public space, some are in high demand and are crowding out active travel and those should be charged accordingly. Where I live it's a very quiet road (inside LTN) with plenty of space for everyone and regular trees planted already.

As I said before I would support a move to the Brighton and Hove style system, which seems a bit fairer.

Lambeth charge 63 quid to put a skip outside your house for two weeks.

 

[teuchter]

Where I live it's a very quiet road (inside LTN) with plenty of space for everyone and regular trees planted already.

Only because that space is shared exclusively between car owners instead of between everyone.

If anyone could pay £100 a year for an SUV sized storage shed on their street, I bet the level of demand would look different.

I pay about £50 a year for a space in one of those bike hangars. The hangar takes one car parking space and can store 4 or 5 bikes. I would pay more than that.

 

[alex_]

Only because that space is shared exclusively between car owners instead of between everyone.

If anyone could pay £100 a year for an SUV sized storage shed on their street, I bet the level of demand would look different.

I pay about £50 a year for a space in one of those bike hangars. The hangar takes one car parking space and can store 4 or 5 bikes. I would pay more than that.

To rent a garage from lambeth for none council tenants costs £36 per week.

According to tinterweb, an 100sq ft lockup at bigyellow is 45 quid a week.

 

[Cat Fan]

We managed perfectly well without a car.

Difference of households without children and those with is only 1-8%. Income is a much bigger factor.

View attachment 363728

People choose to build their lives around having a car and only fair they should pay something towards the negative effect it has on others.

If you would have looked at Fig 5 above, it's a 16% gap.

But your own chart says basically anyone who can afford one with preschool age children has one. It's not so much a luxury when 65%+ of households opt for it, luxuries are for the top 10%-20% of households surely.