Gramsci
Well-Known Member
As somesome who campaignned to save the local Adventure playground I dont think that at all.
I do think that parents who need to use transport to get children to school should be listened to.
Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
As somesome who campaignned to save the local Adventure playground I dont think that at all.
I do think that parents who need to use transport to get children to school should be listened to.
newbie
undisambiguated
I've mentioned her and her daughter a number of times on this thread. The points she she makes in that article seem pretty much right to mei heard this woman on Radio 4 Today programme this morning. She is campainer for improving air quality. Her daughter died of asthma. Here is her view of recent LTN in her area.
Mum whose daughter may have died of pollution poisoning condemns toxin-cutting road measures
By Grainne Cuffe, Local Democracy Reporter A leading environmental campaigner whose daughter’s death may have been linked to air pollution said the surge in traffic by her home following traffic ca…londonnewsonline.co.uk
Basically she is saying LTNs displace traffic onto main roads. In London a lot of people live on what are classified as main roads. Causing more pollution on those rods.
A new inquest is (was?) scheduled for later this year, looking specifically at main road air pollution and including " Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which triggers an enhanced inquest that looks at whether the state failed in its duty to keep a person safe. "
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Heard about this on the radio this morning.
Shapps is now backtracking and blaming Councils for implementing what is government policy.
Grant Shapps tells councils to stop abusing £250m fund meant for green transport revolution
So the Tories are going to blame Councils for this. Lesson- dont work with a right wing Tory government.
Shapps is now backtracking and blaming Councils for implementing what is government policy.
.
Grant Shapps tells councils to stop abusing £250m fund meant for green transport revolution
So the Tories are going to blame Councils for this. Lesson- dont work with a right wing Tory government.
Last edited:
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
That’s fine, let’s work on reducing main road traffic also, let’s not forget Brixton had bad pollution long before the pandemic and the LTNs happened, so we need to reduce motor usage and make alternatives more viable.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Whole point of LTNs is to make traffic use what are designated as main roads. Stop traffic cutting through areas designated for LTNs.
In my area Coldharbour lane and Brixton road.
So increase onto main roads is a given. It is part of the design of them.
If you support LTNs that is part of it.
In my area Coldharbour lane and Brixton road.
So increase onto main roads is a given. It is part of the design of them.
If you support LTNs that is part of it.
editor
hiraethified
I walked along Railton Road yesterday and it was lovely and quiet. I'd like that for Coldharbour Lane too, please.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Its not going to happen on CHL. So I will live with the consequences.
What I would like is getting the basics right. Supposed to be 20mph on CHL. Signs up saying so. As you know several accidents recently on that stretch of road from LJ to Brixton Village.
Got letter saying works will be done on the LJ bit of CHL from Tescos under the railway bridge to make that section more safe. This is due to excessive regular speeding on this stretch. Over 50mph is normal acording to the letter i got from Council. Which i can well believe. I see a lot of traffic speeding on that section.
ULEZ extension and speed cameras are needed on CHL.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
Seriously man, this is horseshit. Main roads get used to capacity - however that is defined by those who use them. If you restrict traffic on rat runs, yes you get a bit of short term kick back on to main roads and then they go back to where they were. Rat runs are always extra capacity for cars - take them away, you reduce usage. Lots of people don't get it because they haven't done the data, but yes it's what happens.
I've literally seen it myself, I've commuted (by car) on a dual carriageway that used to back up to the last roundabout; it got cut to one lane a couple of years ago, the queues were a nightmare (I wanted to turn off at the roundabout, it was annoying, this wasn't "my" traffic jam) within 2 months, the quesues had got back to normal. Then after about 6 months the second lane came back and for a couple of weeks it flowed like water, then it got back to exactly where it had been before everything began.
Exactly what happened I don't know but it's obvious that if you supply extra capacity, it gets taken up with more journeys, if you remove it, journeys drop.
How in gods name you can claim that more car journeys are good for poor people is well beyond me. Cars are great for rich people, quite good for middling people and shit for the poor. Simple as that.
It's fucking crazy. Get cars out of Lambeth full stop. 90% of people would be better off, I dont[ care about the other 10%.
newbie
undisambiguated
A little girl died, that's not remotely 'fine'.
The main roads have bad traffic. Address that, don't make it worse.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
Do you honestly think that’s what I meant?. That’s a bit low, even with the sniping you’ve been doing on here.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Well I live here. It remains to be seen how LTNs will work here.
LTNs are a specific way to reduce through traffic in a designated area. Lambeth are doing that on local neighbourhood basis. A road like CHL is not part of it. I may find more traffic on my road. At certain times of day that looks like the case. I do hope the Council will do proper monitering of this to see affect on roads around the LTNs.
Where did I claim that more car journey are good for poor people? I don't remember saying that.
Im not sure what you are saying to me. You appear to be saying that cars should be banned from Lambeth. Which is step more than the LTN concept I think.
Last edited:
newbie
undisambiguated
You meant something other than what you said?
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
I absolutely didn’t say that. A bit low, even for you.
newbie
undisambiguated
absolutely didn't say what? You've lost me. The posts are there to be read. I have no idea what you think your words meant, but if you want to go back and edit, I'll edit my reply and we can all move on.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
I didn’t say that it was fine a girl had died, my posts are clear enough.
newbie
undisambiguated
Obviously they're not. I can't see anything in the post I wrote and you quoted that I'd describe as fine. It was all about the death and forthcoming inquest of a little girl who lived close to a main road.
I'll quote again what her mother said, none of which is fine.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
newbie
undisambiguated
You've raised the possibility that the first bit was intended to mean something other than what it says. What were you describing as fine?
I dealt with the second bit by saying " The main roads have bad traffic. Address that, don't make it worse. "
I couldn't make much sense of the word 'also' given that LTNs are designed to increase the traffic on main roads.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
What I was describing as fine is the argument that there should be less traffic on main roads, and when I said “let’s work on reducing that also” I meant let’s come up with ways of having less traffic on the main roads. LTNs are part of a solution, not just existing by themselves.
Understand now?.
newbie
undisambiguated
I just spotted your edit.
So you're agreeing with someone who says " where did they think the traffic was going to go?... it was “unforgivable” to make the changes during a pandemic. ... The other side is more affluent.... It’s environmental racism.... People live on these main roads, and it’s the poorer people who live on them.... Gloating that your children can now go out and play or cycle does not help things.... Does that mean my children do not deserve to do that? ... It is as if now that the traffic is not in their neighbourhood, they are not concerned where the traffic was. "?
Good. Her campaigning over the last few years has been very persistent and I'm pleased her message is finally getting through. Her child's life matters.
There are 40,000 premature deaths a year due to air pollution and although traffic is only part of that it's pretty obvious that those who live or work on the main roads bear the brunt of the pollution from traffic. I posted the local map a few pages back, which clearly shows that bad air is not on the backstreets, it's on the main roads, .
And yet, you're agreeing with her (and me) that there should be less traffic on main roads but somehow you support LTNs which- I repeat- are designed to increase the traffic on main roads, and which she is campaigning against. I'm not sure I can agree your posts are clear, especially as just before all this you were commenting positively about (some) children being able to play outside without mentioning those who don't ever open their windows because of the noise and filth.
tbh I think you, and others, have been conned into supporting a project to gentrify and suburbanise for the benefit of comfortable insiders regardless of the health and wellbeing effects on less affluent people who have to live on the main roads, where few with any real choice would seek to be. If you really do agree with her then the last thing an LTN should be described as is 'part of a solution'. It's not, it's a way of making the problems worse.
So you're agreeing with someone who says " where did they think the traffic was going to go?... it was “unforgivable” to make the changes during a pandemic. ... The other side is more affluent.... It’s environmental racism.... People live on these main roads, and it’s the poorer people who live on them.... Gloating that your children can now go out and play or cycle does not help things.... Does that mean my children do not deserve to do that? ... It is as if now that the traffic is not in their neighbourhood, they are not concerned where the traffic was. "?
Good. Her campaigning over the last few years has been very persistent and I'm pleased her message is finally getting through. Her child's life matters.
There are 40,000 premature deaths a year due to air pollution and although traffic is only part of that it's pretty obvious that those who live or work on the main roads bear the brunt of the pollution from traffic. I posted the local map a few pages back, which clearly shows that bad air is not on the backstreets, it's on the main roads, .
And yet, you're agreeing with her (and me) that there should be less traffic on main roads but somehow you support LTNs which- I repeat- are designed to increase the traffic on main roads, and which she is campaigning against. I'm not sure I can agree your posts are clear, especially as just before all this you were commenting positively about (some) children being able to play outside without mentioning those who don't ever open their windows because of the noise and filth.
tbh I think you, and others, have been conned into supporting a project to gentrify and suburbanise for the benefit of comfortable insiders regardless of the health and wellbeing effects on less affluent people who have to live on the main roads, where few with any real choice would seek to be. If you really do agree with her then the last thing an LTN should be described as is 'part of a solution'. It's not, it's a way of making the problems worse.
Aristocrat
Stop me b4 I do it again
Looks like previously it took negative 3 minutes.
co-op
But....but cLoWnFiSh....
I've not been following this whole massive thread so maybe I've missed something key but Cars (/private vehicles) Are The Problem. Ideally we would have a phased plan to get them out of our cities full stop. Because of vested interests we don't and we're not going to get one (my first anti-car protest was in the 1970s, in London, the incredible lack of movement on this issue is depressing).
So we have to welcome anything that (a) allows more people to safely and enjoyably use bicycles or walk - without impeding public transport and (b) reduces car use (and you never get (a) without (b)).
LTNs do this. It's not the best way, but it's a step.
But wait! Oh what a surprise! In some aspects of their implementation, they also reproduce existing power structures in a neo-liberal economy, specifically they generally favour richer households in smaller streets. IE exactly how things were before, and how things would be if there were no LTNs.
But then again, since poor households don't have access to cars (over 50% of Lambeth population live in households with no access to a car) and therefore suffer all the negative impacts of cars but without any of the benefits, making safe routes through Lambeth for non-car users and improving the reliability and speed of public transport also disproportionately benefits the poor. So it's not even like there's a simple cost-benefit analysis here - it's inevitably complex.
Yes LTNs will displace some traffic onto major roads. The evidence is that that displacement is temporary and that every time you reduce capacity, you eventually reduce car use - just as we know that if you increase capacity, you increase car use - which is why road-building has never got rid of traffic jams.
Maybe it would be better if we could divert all these bloody things onto the back streets of the rich but it's pretty obvious that would be a battle we'd lose. Apart from which the operations of the housing market would simply reverse itself and poor people currently living on roads like the the South Circular would be hoiked out pretty quick and replaced with the well-off.
Of all battles to choose, to line up on the side of the car, just because measures to control its (literally) stifling grip on our streets don't also overthrow modern capitalism, seems bizarre to me.
Loose meat
Well-Known Member
Why are you talking like all LTNs are the same?
If you reduce pollution in area A and increase it in the adjoining area B, and area A is predominately owner-occupied and white while area B is predominately social housing and BAME, the cost/benefit is immoral and unjust and almost certaily illegal.
Plus, if you live in the Railton LTN you made £30,000-£50,000 so there is that, esp. when many in area B already rely on foodbanks.
If you reduce pollution in area A and increase it in the adjoining area B, and area A is predominately owner-occupied and white while area B is predominately social housing and BAME, the cost/benefit is immoral and unjust and almost certaily illegal.
Plus, if you live in the Railton LTN you made £30,000-£50,000 so there is that, esp. when many in area B already rely on foodbanks.
Loose meat
Well-Known Member
All you have to do is sell the car. You don't need posh Tory bollards with flower beds to do that.
Last edited:
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
Like I pointed out to you very patiently, I agree with her that there should be less traffic on main roads. I'm not sure why you're having trouble with this.
Again, it's not the case where all the existing traffic will get moved off these roads and sent down that one road. That's one thing which has been really badly communicated by the council. And it's also not the case that the changes stop at just LTNs.
newbie
undisambiguated
I think you have missed some useful posts, yes. Like the evidence produced from a (pre-Covid) flagship LTN in Waltham Forest which showed just 1% reduction in car use.
A couple of other points about your post. There are about 100,000 private hire vehicles in London, catering mainly for those under 40, and Uber has some 3.5 million users. I haven't found a figure for the number of rides, but their turnover was £68m in 2018, and the number of drivers has almost doubled since then, so there must have been a lot of rides at a few quid each. I also can't find sensible figures for the number of doorstep van deliveries from Amazon, Ebay, supermarkets etc, but the increase over the last few years is clear and obvious. To pretend that none of those users live in Lambeth or tick a box saying 'no access to a car' would be absurd. Add in taxis, Addison Lee etc and Zipcars and consider the local over representation of the under 40s and the bald 'no access to a car' figure appears somewhat misleading (as is the presumption all such households are 'poor'). Just look around at what's on the road and cabs (all of the various sorts), deliveries and trades/businesses make up the vast majority. Private cars are a bit tip of the iceberg, especiall;y since lockdown started, commuting withered and streets became much, much quieter.
Your glib "Yes LTNs will displace some traffic onto major roads." goes alongside "90% of people would be better off, I dont[ care about the other 10%." The little girl discussed above is one of that 10%. Her life matters.
Last edited:
newbie
undisambiguated
If you support the imposition of LTNs you are supporting pushing more traffic onto main roads. Displaced traffic is nothing to do with bad council communication, its a design feature.
It's LTNs we're discussing, I'm not aware anyone has objected to increased cycling infrastructure, pavement widening and the other Covid responses, I certainly haven't.
newbie
undisambiguated
cheers, me too. I've also been accused of being a tory amongst other slurs.
Similar threads
