Entirely unashamed anti car propaganda, and the more the better.
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
Amazing how many people don't realise that 4WD doesn't magic ice away. Most of them here are on summer tyres anyhow, and I would take a RWD car with snow tyres over an AWD on summers any day in the slush.
Hollis
bloody furious
This does slightly amuse me in relation to the LTN arguments in Haringey. Apparently LTNS are the only thing that can fix the traffic problem in Haringey per our deputy council leader. However, Wood Green currently has over 1800 car parking spaces... 600 of which are directly run the council. They're all very cheap as well..
You'd think if they wanted to discourage car journeys then doing somethng about that might be a starting point.
klang
klang
really just shows how shit cars are, never mind their drivers.
Last edited:
teuchter
je suis teuchter
No doubt, unlike LTNs, a reduction in parking spaces would be accepted by resident motorists without the slightest objection.
klang
klang
anything to piss them off tbh....
Hollis
bloody furious
Closing car parks would seem a cheap solution. Also alot of the traffic will be from outside surrounding areas... it seems the Council is probably more concerned at not pissing off Primark, and protecting its own car parking revenue.
When LTNs are presented as the only solution, its somewhat hypocritical when you're designing in car parks to facilitate use of car..
I know Waltham Forest Council has now closed its staff car park.. small steps.
When LTNs are presented as the only solution, its somewhat hypocritical when you're designing in car parks to facilitate use of car..
I know Waltham Forest Council has now closed its staff car park.. small steps.
Last edited:
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Here's a consultation by Haringey on restricting parking by splitting a large CPZ into smaller ones.
From page 19 onwards you can read all the complaints from people about how it's unfair.
Hollis
bloody furious
Yeah - I remember that. That's slightly different to closing the mutli-storeys though. Of course, I know it'll never happen, or not until they knock down Shopping City in 50/100 years..
I'm not sure the popularity would have been that different to the consultations on LTNs if they'd effectively included people outside the LTN areas. I've looked at the West Green LTN consultation and the vast majority of respondents were within the LTN - so not suprising it was net popular.
Car parking prices are really cheap atm.. Park for up to 10 hours for £5... not much of a disincentive even.
I'm not sure the popularity would have been that different to the consultations on LTNs if they'd effectively included people outside the LTN areas. I've looked at the West Green LTN consultation and the vast majority of respondents were within the LTN - so not suprising it was net popular.
Car parking prices are really cheap atm.. Park for up to 10 hours for £5... not much of a disincentive even.
Last edited:
Chz
Stark Raving Sane
It does aggravate me sometimes that even though I want to take the bus, for two of us it's cheaper to drive into Croydon or Sutton and park. They need to take the £3.30 return bus fare into account when they set parking fees. Even if you were going as one person, the prices above make driving more attractive than the bus for up to a 4 hour shop.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Not really sure what your point is. I'd like city centre car parking to be significantly reduced, and made more expensive, too.
You are presenting it as if there's a choice between things like LTNs and restricting parking. For some reason you say it's "hypocritical" to go for LTNs. Using LTNs doesn't rule out other measures. Clearly your council has attempted other measures too, but they proved unpopular.
Proposing to close city centre multi-storeys would reliably result in protest, and people saying that such schemes were unnecessary when there are lighter touch alternatives like LTNs (which don't actually stop anyone getting anywhere in their car).
Hollis
bloody furious
More commenting on the words of Haringey's deputy leader:
"In fact, the only traffic mgmt interventions which have proven to reduce traffic volumes on main roads in urban areas are where network access is scaled down, as with LTNs."
"It's worth repeating - schemes such as LTNs are the only traffic management interventions which have cracked the problem of reducing congestion without actually banning cars altogether."
And, to clarify, I certainly don't see it as an 'either/or'.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
So you're quoting from this Twitter thread:
He does not say that "LTNs are the only solution" as you initially wrote.
What he says is that the only interventions that reduce traffic on main roads are ones where network access is scaled down. LTNs are one of various types of intervention that do this. And I would say that significantly reducing parking space is one way of reducing network access.
Hollis
bloody furious
Yeah - fair point - But you do see what he's doing on that thread don't you? - It all happens to be about LTNs - no discussion/mention of any actual alternatives.. and then if you're not supportive of them then the final inference is that you're happy with road collisions etc..
ETA: there's a good comment by someone on that thread around the impact of congestion charging, reinvesting in busess.. and impact on journeys.
ETA: there's a good comment by someone on that thread around the impact of congestion charging, reinvesting in busess.. and impact on journeys.
Last edited:
teuchter
je suis teuchter
The thread is specifically about boundary road effects after the introduction of LTNs. Presumably because LTNs have just been introduced in Haringey, and lots of people are complaining about these effects.
Probably lots of people are saying "we should do X or Y instead". So I imagine that's why he's written the thread. To defend why they have decided to implemented LTNs.
He says schemes "such as LTNs".
The thread does not appear to me to rule out anything else being used in conjunction.
London-wide congestion charging and bus services are controlled by the mayor/TfL, not London boroughs. Haringey implementing LTNs does not prevent investment in bus services. Currently, central govt policy prevents further investment in buses.
Probably lots of people are saying "we should do X or Y instead". So I imagine that's why he's written the thread. To defend why they have decided to implemented LTNs.
He says schemes "such as LTNs".
The thread does not appear to me to rule out anything else being used in conjunction.
London-wide congestion charging and bus services are controlled by the mayor/TfL, not London boroughs. Haringey implementing LTNs does not prevent investment in bus services. Currently, central govt policy prevents further investment in buses.
Hollis
bloody furious
You are right he's written it in response to the current mess happening on the boundary roads... and to try to justify what is happening and what he's done. They've changed tack because initially there was minimal communication, but because of what's happening on the roads - and not just the immediate boundary roads - they're now doing the 'we are listening/they're not a binary choice'.
I do wonder what the long term success of these will be - given the large amount of through traffic in Haringey - particularly coming down the A10. Hakarta himself acknowleges through traffic is the main problem. I suspect a £20 road charge on the A10 would've achived far more than these will. As things stand I think we're going to just see long term traffic displacement - which I doubt the evaluation plan will capture. Instead they'll conveniently just focus on the immediate boundary roads.
If they were serious about modal shift - they ought to be serious about cycle lanes as well - they're non-existent on virtually all the main roads - including Green Lanes. And I see fail to see why having 1800 cheap car parking spaces available is consistent with a genuine plan of traffic reduction.
And today you'll see on twitter they're being called out on their car parking consultation - people are rightly challenging if it should just be about cars, or if it should be about how street space is used.
I do wonder what the long term success of these will be - given the large amount of through traffic in Haringey - particularly coming down the A10. Hakarta himself acknowleges through traffic is the main problem. I suspect a £20 road charge on the A10 would've achived far more than these will. As things stand I think we're going to just see long term traffic displacement - which I doubt the evaluation plan will capture. Instead they'll conveniently just focus on the immediate boundary roads.
If they were serious about modal shift - they ought to be serious about cycle lanes as well - they're non-existent on virtually all the main roads - including Green Lanes. And I see fail to see why having 1800 cheap car parking spaces available is consistent with a genuine plan of traffic reduction.
And today you'll see on twitter they're being called out on their car parking consultation - people are rightly challenging if it should just be about cars, or if it should be about how street space is used.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
All these arguments have been done to death on the Brixton LTN thread.
Pretty much every single measure, aimed at reducing car dominance, that anyone proposes, is always met with a bunch of complaints that why aren't we doing this something else instead. Pretty much every example of something else instead is something that would be met with resistance on the same grounds.
If you want to reduce cheap car parking spaces hassle your councillors about doing that as well as LTNs, instead of moaning about LTNs.
If you want to see more road pricing, lobby TfL and your MP for road pricing as well as LTNs, instead of moaning about LTNs.
If you want to see more cycle lanes, lobby your council and TfL about implementing them as well as LTNs, instead of moaning about LTNs.
If, for example, you're really serious about getting more cycle infrastructure in, try actively supporting it in discussions on social media. You'll find that you are arguing against a bunch of people who have a pretty big overlap with the anti-LTN bunch.
Pretty much every single measure, aimed at reducing car dominance, that anyone proposes, is always met with a bunch of complaints that why aren't we doing this something else instead. Pretty much every example of something else instead is something that would be met with resistance on the same grounds.
If you want to reduce cheap car parking spaces hassle your councillors about doing that as well as LTNs, instead of moaning about LTNs.
If you want to see more road pricing, lobby TfL and your MP for road pricing as well as LTNs, instead of moaning about LTNs.
If you want to see more cycle lanes, lobby your council and TfL about implementing them as well as LTNs, instead of moaning about LTNs.
If, for example, you're really serious about getting more cycle infrastructure in, try actively supporting it in discussions on social media. You'll find that you are arguing against a bunch of people who have a pretty big overlap with the anti-LTN bunch.
Hollis
bloody furious
Well I'm sorry if I've missed all the arguments on the Brixton Forum - however I don't live in Brixton, so probably wading through 298 retrospective pages of what's going on in the Brixton LTNs would be hard work..
I am however familiar with a number of arguments through other social media - and the 'stop moaning' argument which you seem to be making now - is quite a common one. Okay to post stuff about how amazing they are - but if you're someone whose been adversely impacted by them then you really shouldn't have an opinion. Or people who moan about them never have any ideas about anything else to do, but if you do... that's not welcome either.
FWIW I have been supporting cycling infrastructure on social media - including direct posts to Hakarta about the state of the roads in Haringey. I've also emailed and engaged with every local councillor and the transport department - the response rate is very low. I have, however, now been successful in having one meeting to discuss the LTNs and explaining what's happening in the area I live.
I am however familiar with a number of arguments through other social media - and the 'stop moaning' argument which you seem to be making now - is quite a common one. Okay to post stuff about how amazing they are - but if you're someone whose been adversely impacted by them then you really shouldn't have an opinion. Or people who moan about them never have any ideas about anything else to do, but if you do... that's not welcome either.
FWIW I have been supporting cycling infrastructure on social media - including direct posts to Hakarta about the state of the roads in Haringey. I've also emailed and engaged with every local councillor and the transport department - the response rate is very low. I have, however, now been successful in having one meeting to discuss the LTNs and explaining what's happening in the area I live.
Last edited:
There’s no evidence LTNs increase traffic on boundary road. The A10 is pretty much at capacity at peak times anyway. Lots of studies however to show that making it easier to drive (eg. by providing back street routes) increases traffic.
As evidenced endlessly in this thread, we’ve pandered to car owners (who remember are the minority in Haringey) for decades. LTNs are a small rebalancing and an acknowledgment that we don’t have to give over all roads to endless traffic. The tantrum that car owners throw over them just highlights their inherent selfishness.
Of course there are other things that should be done but these are actually being done now so we should support them. If cycle lanes, limiting parking, road pricing were being done then maybe we wouldn’t need LTNs but they aren’t and would face just as much opposition anyway.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
A good post about the continuing failure to build housing around public transport, rather than around private transport.
www.transportfornewhomes.org.uk
I've been in Inverness quite a bit recently. Not that long ago a new ring-road / bypass road opened. Some of my relatives think this is great because there are various places they can now drive to in their cars more easily. But I hate it - it's part of an entirely car-centric suburban sprawl that has been going on for decades. It's an example of the kind of planning that the article above is going on about.
All of the housing in this part of town is built around this distributor road.
Here's what it looks like if I search for "groceries" in google maps in this part of town. I don't think it's missed out any small convenience stores.
Pretty much this whole area is served by two massive supermarkets. The supermarkets are placed exactly where they are convenient to get at by car from that ring road (marked as the A8082). No smaller shops that are convenient to get at on foot from all of those houses. Even the residential streets are laid out in a way that isn't very convenient for pedestrians.
A lot of this development is from the 80s/90s and earlier.
But they are currently building new bits. It's the 2020s so maybe there is a more enlightened town planning approach now?
Nope not really. One of the new bits, of course connected to the stupid ring road, is to the left of the Tesco superstore on that image above. But does it include any kind of local centre, with the kinds of shops people would be inclined to visit on foot? No. Not as far as I can see anyway.
Fairly much just more of the same. It looks like a bit more effort has gone into providing some pedestrian or cycle through routes. So maybe there is a footpath that will take you to the giant supermarket, perhaps crossing its giant carpark on the way. And maybe there is a cycle path that will get you to the distributor road. Is there cycling provision on this brand new road? Yes! You get to share the pavement with whatever pedestrians want to walk along a windswept road, with nice gentle curves that people can drive fast along. And at every single roundabout (there are lots of roundabouts) you can cross each exit individually, because you are a second-rate low priority road user.
Upside-down geography - Transport for New Homes
Locations for new housing are not considered in terms of sustainable transport, access to services, employment or environmental impact.
www.transportfornewhomes.org.uk
I've been in Inverness quite a bit recently. Not that long ago a new ring-road / bypass road opened. Some of my relatives think this is great because there are various places they can now drive to in their cars more easily. But I hate it - it's part of an entirely car-centric suburban sprawl that has been going on for decades. It's an example of the kind of planning that the article above is going on about.
All of the housing in this part of town is built around this distributor road.
Here's what it looks like if I search for "groceries" in google maps in this part of town. I don't think it's missed out any small convenience stores.
Pretty much this whole area is served by two massive supermarkets. The supermarkets are placed exactly where they are convenient to get at by car from that ring road (marked as the A8082). No smaller shops that are convenient to get at on foot from all of those houses. Even the residential streets are laid out in a way that isn't very convenient for pedestrians.
A lot of this development is from the 80s/90s and earlier.
But they are currently building new bits. It's the 2020s so maybe there is a more enlightened town planning approach now?
Nope not really. One of the new bits, of course connected to the stupid ring road, is to the left of the Tesco superstore on that image above. But does it include any kind of local centre, with the kinds of shops people would be inclined to visit on foot? No. Not as far as I can see anyway.
Fairly much just more of the same. It looks like a bit more effort has gone into providing some pedestrian or cycle through routes. So maybe there is a footpath that will take you to the giant supermarket, perhaps crossing its giant carpark on the way. And maybe there is a cycle path that will get you to the distributor road. Is there cycling provision on this brand new road? Yes! You get to share the pavement with whatever pedestrians want to walk along a windswept road, with nice gentle curves that people can drive fast along. And at every single roundabout (there are lots of roundabouts) you can cross each exit individually, because you are a second-rate low priority road user.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
Hmm, all the recent and planned large developments on the edge of Cambridge in recent years have a local centre with a mandatory supermarket, community centre, primary school etc. This sort of stuff was required in the Local Plan.
Perhaps the residents of Inverness are shit at electing councilors to their planning authority.
Perhaps the residents of Inverness are shit at electing councilors to their planning authority.
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
A cycle campaigner argues against the bus improvements proposed to be implemented with the Cambridge congestion charge revenue. Well worth reading if you hope to eliminate private cars by providing lots more buses:
cjhowell.blogspot.com
Response to the GCP Making Connections 2022 Consultation.
Below is my response to the GCP Making Connections 2022 Consultation . Looking back at this very irregular blog, this really is Congestion C...
cjhowell.blogspot.com
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Which part of this ex conservative city councillor's opinion did you find the most compelling?A cycle campaigner argues against the bus improvements proposed to be implemented with the Cambridge congestion charge revenue. Well worth reading if you hope to eliminate private cars by providing lots more buses:
Response to the GCP Making Connections 2022 Consultation.
Below is my response to the GCP Making Connections 2022 Consultation . Looking back at this very irregular blog, this really is Congestion C...
platinumsage
HaveMyPassword123
He's treasurer of the Cambridge Cycling Campaign. Your usual transport-related political assumptions don't apply in Cambridge.
