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

[Cat Fan]

Which begs the question, if LTNs won’t do that for a core group of drivers who could reduce, how do you do it?

The ULEZ backlash is brilliant for exposing all the people who feel massively entitled to drive wherever they please. Bizarrely Kent/Surrey residents now calling it "unfair" when they are charged for driving highly polluting cars in London.

What is truly unfair is all the people who die in London from poor air quality caused by thoughtless drivers.

ULEZ expansion: London emission zone 'extremely unfair' for Kent drivers

Kent County Council says TFL "will not be installing warning signs on our territory".

www.bbc.co.uk

But to answer your question I see two ways we can fix the situation.

1) make public transport and/or on demand transport (driverless cars and buses one day?) so good that driving becomes the less convenient option
2) visible and expensive per mile charging within the M25. Petrol is just way too cheap for the environmental harm it causes and public transport (train/tube) is relatively too expensive. I would love to see the impact on traffic if car journeys were charged per mile the same as the average zone 1/2 peak time tube journey.

 

[Cat Fan]

Should probably charge a minimum flat "journey fee" as well just to discourage short trips that could be walked/cycled

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Hopefully the fact that they are moaning confirms that it is indeed having an impact on them.

Completely anecdotal but I do know a few people who initially moaned (a bit) about things but have actually changed some of their routines in response. In one case, someone who previously dropped their kid to nursery, by car, on their way to work, now often cycles to work while their partner does the school drop off on bike/foot as part of their journey to work (which is sometimes by public transport and sometimes by bike).

What was notable about this to me, was that the previous convenience meant that not only was the kid dropped to nursery by car, but the driving to work was made attractive by the fact that it could be combined with the nursery drop. An LTN made the drive to nursery and then to work more convoluted, with an element of doubling back, and that was enough to prompt a change. (I am probably over simplifying all the factors involved, but the point is, they initially were unhappy about the LTN but now seem untroubled by a change in routine that wasn't actually all that difficult to make.)

My “favourite” convenience is driving to the local gym, to then walk/run on a treadmill

Of course, when you’ve never factored driving into the equation the location choices you make are based on walking distance/public transport routes.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

1) make public transport and/or on demand transport (driverless cars and buses one day?) so good that driving becomes the less convenient option

Going west to east (and vice versa) in south London is tricky granted, but otherwise London’s public transport network is already very good! The only thing I sometimes think would be useful is those minibuses you get in other countries that pick up multiple people and drop them off at their different locations. Though I think Uber already has that option and I don’t know how popular it is.

2) visible and expensive per mile charging within the M25. Petrol is just way too cheap for the environmental harm it causes and public transport (train/tube) is relatively too expensive. I would love to see the impact on traffic if car journeys were charged per mile the same as the average zone 1/2 peak time tube journey.

You won’t get disagreement with me on that, provided disability benefits and delivery driver’s wages go up to match it. Although again, it is penalising the poorest more. And public transport should get cheaper to compensate (obviously through being subsidised more).

 

[edcraw]

My “favourite” convenience is driving to the local gym, to then walk/run on a treadmill

Of course, when you’ve never factored driving into the equation the location choices you make are based on walking distance/public transport routes.

Yep - and the only way you’re going to stop people doing that sort of thing is by making it difficult eg. a long route or no/expensive parking.

 

[thebackrow]

1) make public transport and/or on demand transport (driverless cars and buses one day?) so good that driving becomes the less convenient option
2) visible and expensive per mile charging within the M25. Petrol is just way too cheap for the environmental harm it causes and public transport (train/tube) is relatively too expensive. I would love to see the impact on traffic if car journeys were charged per mile the same as the average zone 1/2 peak time tube journey.

Completely agree that the two things you can affect on driving are cost and convenience, and that per mile charging is a large part of the answer. The other is cost of parking at destinations - it should be restricted and chargeable everywhere (a cost and convenience lever).

You've ignored cycling which for many trips is already more convenient as it's door to door, cheaper (free at the time of use), and at least as quick as either driving or public transport for most trips up to about inside London. (And walking - which for very short trips doesn't add much time).

Door to door cheap "public transport" is Uber and its venture capital subsidised fares. Driverless cars don't solve any issues at all - they're no different to taxis or Uber - and would likely make things worse - You'd not need to find parking, you could just leave your driverless car circling around while you did what you were doing, or send it home to come and pick you up later. They'd increase not decrease traffic.

I'd argue that if you're prepared to walk a short distance to public transport driving is already the less convenient option for most trips within London, and if you factor in parking costs in most places, public transport it nearly always cheaper as well. But it doesn't stop people doing it so clearly the price and convenience disincentives at the moment aren't large enough. LTNs are part of that.

Shifting towards healthier transport: carrots or sticks? Systematic review and meta-analysis of population-level interventions

This Article found that, although transport interventions with only positive strategies are more commonly evaluated, interventions that combine both positive and negative strategies might be more effective at encouraging alternatives to driving at the population level. Further research is needed...

www.thelancet.com

Sticks are more effective than carrots - making driving more expensive and difficult is more effective than making public transport better and cheaper.

 

[nagapie]

If making petrol more expensive was an option, than families like mine who really need to drive would suffer, unless someone's adding a fuel subsidy to our motability allowance (unlikely).

 

[Cat Fan]

Going west to east (and vice versa) in south London is tricky granted, but otherwise London’s public transport network is already very good! The only thing I sometimes think would be useful is those minibuses you get in other countries that pick up multiple people and drop them off at their different locations. Though I think Uber already has that option and I don’t know how popular it is.

You won’t get disagreement with me on that, provided disability benefits and delivery driver’s wages go up to match it. Although again, it is penalising the poorest more. And public transport should get cheaper to compensate (obviously through being subsidised more).

It's good, but aside from buses it's quite expensive. The government subsidy level is much lower than in comparable cities around the world. I was also thinking of longer distance train journeys, which are quite insanely priced, especially compared to sharing a car.

I don't really agree that making car journeys more expensive penalises the poor. As we have already established poorer households in London are far less likely to own a car in the first place. Maybe more subsidised/free public transport for low income households would be the best of both worlds? We already have age based subsidised travel.

I do think that it would have an impact on the cost of deliveries and on trades. But that gets passed to the customers in higher prices and if everyone stopped ordering trivial things on Amazon and shopped more locally it might not be the worst idea.

 

[Cat Fan]

If making petrol more expensive was an option, than families like mine who really need to drive would suffer, unless someone's adding a fuel subsidy to our motability allowance (unlikely).

What changes could we make as a society that would help reduce your family's need to drive? (Carrot, not stick)

 

[nagapie]

What changes could we make as a society that would help reduce your family's need to drive? (Carrot, not stick)

None. For some families it's essential. The whole aim is to reduce traffic to those who really need it, that's us. Why do we need to be off the road and create even more barriers to going out into the community for us?
If you're going to raise petrol, we need an inflation linked petrol benefit.

 

[Cat Fan]

Not exactly, the aim is to reduce everyone's car use, not free up the roads for the select few.

 

[nagapie]

Not exactly, the aim is to reduce everyone's car use, not free up the roads for the select few.

The significantly disabled are hardly a select few.

 

[Cat Fan]

We all need to reduce our emissions to make sure the world is habitable for future generations. There are plenty of people with limited mobility who don't have personal cars IIRC. How did people get around in the 1920s when no one had personal cars?

 

[nagapie]

We all need to reduce our emissions to make sure the world is habitable for future generations. There are plenty of people with limited mobility who don't have personal cars IIRC. How did people get around in the 1920s when no one had personal cars?

I can assure you that disabled people make far less journeys out than your average person due to many factors but very much because very little in society is set up to enable them access. For example the majority of disabled people stay at home because there are not even suitable toilets for them but you probably think a normal disabled toilet covers that because you are demonstrating that you know fuck all about the day to day complexities of living with severe disabilities.

You've been on here for however many weeks arguing that you and other families need car access and two parking spaces but now the disabled, probably the most disadvantaged community there is, must make the sacrifices.
Fuck off, you know nothing. How about you swap your kids' mobility for my kid's mobility issues and I'll gladly give up my privileged place in the selected few.

 

[nagapie]

In the 1920s severely disabled people were left in institutions to rot. Are you for fucking real?

 

[Cat Fan]

I'm sorry for offending you nagapie. You're right I don't know enough about your day to day life.

I think technology should be able to find a way to bring everyone into a new and brighter future that doesn't rely on fossil fuels but we're obviously not there yet. I'm not seriously suggesting we make life more difficult for people with disabilities and carers.

As a society there is a lot more we should and could be doing to help the disabled. If I was in charge I'd start with more financial support. living wage as a minimum.

 

[nagapie]

I'm sorry for offending you nagapie. You're right I don't know enough about your day to day life.

I think technology should be able to find a way to bring everyone into a new and brighter future that doesn't rely on fossil fuels but we're obviously not there yet. I'm not seriously suggesting we make life more difficult for people with disabilities and carers.

As a society there is a lot more we should and could be doing to help the disabled. If I was in charge I'd start with more financial support. living wage as a minimum.

We're nowhere near there. And it's not fair to make the disabled pay a disproportionate cost when getting there. This has been why I don't support Lambeth LTNs (other boroughs allow blue badge access) because they add another layer of difficulty for the disabled in what is an already incredibly difficult access to society. Comments like oh it just takes a bit longer or can't you just get on a bike or what are the disabled doing to improve society miss the point spectacularly on both a practical day to day and ethical level.

 

[Cat Fan]

Yeah, well I can see your point to be honest, because why do blue badges have to choose one and only one filter. Seems excessive.

And making it so you have to apply for it in advance is needless bureaucracy.

 

[BigTom]

Not exactly, the aim is to reduce everyone's car use, not free up the roads for the select few.

Nah. There are some people who need cars, and freeing up the roads for them is definitely an aim of car reduction measures for me.

Like we should definitely be doing what we can to enable access to other forms of transport so that people who need to use cars now don't anymore but there will always be limits to that and embracing cars for the people for whom public transport, walking or cycling simply doesn't work for most or all of their journeys is the right way to think of things, otherwise too many disabled people will return to bring basically trapped in their houses.

But if car use reduction measures work generally, things should end up better for them. School holiday traffic only drops by 10-15% but congestion drops off a cliff.
To equalise or improve on making journey distances longer, that's what we need to be looking at creating in overall traffic drops i reckon.

And I fully agree with nagapie about fuel price linked motability payments - except that i think motability should be providing EVs and paying for charging point installation (whether from a house or on street) for people, at which point any pricing out takes a different mechanism which also needs to be covered.

 

[BigTom]

Yeah, well I can see your point to be honest, because why do blue badges have to choose one and only one filter. Seems excessive.

And making it so you have to apply for it in advance is needless bureaucracy.

Council's don't know who is a blue badge holder or what car they have do they?

I don't think they will have access to either database.

So how else do you do it except by advance application?

 

[Cat Fan]

Council's don't know who is a blue badge holder or what car they have do they?

I don't think they will have access to either database.

So how else do you do it except by advance application?

I was just thinking of letting people prove their status retrospectively, but you're right

 

[BigTom]

I was just thinking of letting people prove their status retrospectively, but you're right

Yeah, just as much bureaucracy doing it afterwards as before.

 

[Cat Fan]

Yeah, just as much bureaucracy doing it afterwards as before.

Ok, let's take a step back and see how it could be improved. Maybe an opt in to sharing data on blue badges with the council when you apply/reapply for one on the understanding that the council will then automatically use that data to exempt from LTN charges.

Or is that too high tech in 2023?

 

[nagapie]

The council actually issue all the blue badges in their borough after they have been approved so one assumes they have all the info already. The extra admin is because you're only allowed to go through one filter.

 

[Rushy]

Council's don't know who is a blue badge holder or what car they have do they?

I don't think they will have access to either database.

So how else do you do it except by advance application?

They must do, surely? Lambeth are the biggest prosecutor of blue badge misuse in the country accounting for about 1/3 of all prosecutions.

 

[BigTom]

They must do, surely? Lambeth are the biggest prosecutor of blue badge misuse in the country accounting for about 1/3 of all prosecutions.

I'm happy to be shown to be wrong but I thought the blue badge scheme was administered centrally - nagapie has said otherwise though. Having never needed one, is it tied to a specific car? Because you also need that second piece of info and I thought blue badges were tied to a person so they could use them with any car?

 

[BigTom]

Ok, let's take a step back and see how it could be improved. Maybe an opt in to sharing data on blue badges with the council when you apply/reapply for one on the understanding that the council will then automatically use that data to exempt from LTN charges.

Or is that too high tech in 2023?

This issue (I thought) is not one of tech, other than goverment being rubbish with IT projects, but with not wanting to have one big database with all our info on it in one place. Better for security and privacy reasons that stuff gets silo'd to some extent at least.

But I might be wrong about this - if council's know who blue badge holders are and what car they have then yeah I totally agree there's no reason for advance applications as you can just do a blanket exception, or an exception for the closest X camera(s) to someone's registered keeper address for the vehicle, or within a certain distance or whatever.

 

[nagapie]

I'm happy to be shown to be wrong but I thought the blue badge scheme was administered centrally - nagapie has said otherwise though. Having never needed one, is it tied to a specific car? Because you also need that second piece of info and I thought blue badges were tied to a person so they could use them with any car?

They have to be agreed centrally and then administered locally, the joys of SEN admin, so you have to deal with two different parts of the application process (every 9 months because you have to give 3 months for the whole process). They are tied to a person but can be used by anyone who is transporting that person, I think but I only use it for my car and my person so not absolutely sure about this. But for LTN purposes, to bring this back to the thread, they have to be tied to a car or cars; once again I'm not sure how many people are allowed through the Jesus filter as I have only applied for myself.

 

[BigTom]

They have to be agreed centrally and then administered locally, the joys of SEN admin, so you have to deal with two different parts of the application process (every 9 months because you have to give 3 months for the whole process). They are tied to a person but can be used by anyone who is transporting that person, I think but I only use it for my car and my person so not absolutely sure about this. But for LTN purposes, to bring this back to the thread, they have to be tied to a car or cars; once again I'm not sure how many people are allowed through the Jesus filter as I have only applied for myself.

Cheers, so yeah there would need to be a process by which a blue badge holder registers the car even if the council knows who the badge holders are.

 

[alex_]

In a scenario where blue badge holders are exempted from all Lambeth LTNs, for the vast majority of drivers sat nav isn’t going to send them through LTN anyway so it’s only going to peoples local ones ( the ones they know to ignore sat nav ) they drive through anyway.

I can’t see it making much difference.