Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Petition to request parliament review LTNs

Car owners looking out the window and seeing delivery vans come and go: I wonder if it occurs to them that whether or not it means a net increase in vehicles, it means that their monopoly on easy access to goods has ended.

Without widespread home delivery, if you had a car and wanted something you would drive, possibly to an out of town shopping complex with everything set up for your convenience, and get what you want. You'd have an area with a radius measured in miles that would be in easy reach, so lots of choice where to go. And as much as you want - no need to worry about how much you can carry. But without a car, you'd have to limit yourself to places that you could walk to or which were served by public transport. And that tends to mean smaller branches of shops in high streets where the choice is less and the price might be higher. And you'd have to think about how much things weigh and how big they are and whether you can walk with them or get them on the bus. In the past, home delivery was always available to some extent but often would mean you'd have to wait a week or two for the thing to arrive while the car owner could get it the same day.

While home delivery vans may well be replacing some journeys that previously would have been made on foot or by public transport, they also replace journeys made by car where one person drives X miles to get one item. Delivery vans combine multiple delivery trips into one circuit. So I don't see an increase in home deliveries as a bad thing per se; it equalises access to goods. Of course, the more efficient it can be made, the less duplication of service and the less polluting the vehicles can be made, the better.
 
No you don't seem to understand - I am saying pollution from motor vehicles is being addressed but LTNs cause more pollution as they force drivers to drive more miles and they create congestion on the boundary roads
That sounds like bunkum. Where's your evidence? I won't accept anything less than a scholarly source. Think you can find one?
 
No you don't seem to understand - I am saying pollution from motor vehicles is being addressed but LTNs cause more pollution as they force drivers to drive more miles and they create congestion on the boundary roads

Well all the evidence I've seen is that overall pollution is reduced by LTNs, so it's an overall benefit. I certainly agree that we then need to move on to other measures to reduce car use on the boundary roads where they experience higher pollution. I'm sure we won't agree on what those measures should be, but removing the LTNs will lead to more, not less, pollution.
 
Well all the evidence I've seen is that overall pollution is reduced by LTNs, so it's an overall benefit. I certainly agree that we then need to move on to other measures to reduce car use on the boundary roads where they experience higher pollution. I'm sure we won't agree on what those measures should be, but removing the LTNs will lead to more, not less, pollution.

It’s pretty unambiguous that the cars are trying to get on LTNs because the number of cars is expanding to fill the available space

We do need to do LTNs and reduce car usage as a result
 
Well all the evidence I've seen is that overall pollution is reduced by LTNs, so it's an overall benefit. I certainly agree that we then need to move on to other measures to reduce car use on the boundary roads where they experience higher pollution. I'm sure we won't agree on what those measures should be,
1200px-Auto_scrapyard_1.jpg
 
That sounds like bunkum. Where's your evidence? I won't accept anything less than a scholarly source. Think you can find one?
It a given that if drivers have to drive further on more congested roads to reach their intended destination, their cars will create more pollution.
 
Not the same at all. You're starting from a premise that some pollution is ok but more isn't. That's a bad premise.
The premise is that a transport policy that increases journey time and fuel consumption is self defeating. That's the bad premise. Have I convinced you yet?
 
The premise is that a transport policy that increases journey time and fuel consumption is self defeating. That's the bad premise. Have I convinced you yet?

No because the same policy may well (should) increase non-car travel such as walking, cycling or public transport.
 
Surely we could start by banning mini-cabs from London? After all, everyone knows well maintained and well designed Hackney cabs with proper drivers who have done the knowledge are far far better than some amateur in a ropey12 year old Prius with a sat-nav. I think 99% of the people on this thread could get behind that improvement.
 
Back
Top Bottom