Petition to request parliament review LTNs

[ianarmstrong]

So you can see they work, because they have in the past?

Nope you skipped over a lot of what I said - I said the old ones where much smaller and localised and nothing like these wide area LTNs which have a significantly bigger impact on traffic and that causes many negative issues for people, businesses and community based organisations - all of those issues need to be reviewed by parliament as the local authorities are ignoring them in their goal to impose LTNs come what may

 

[teuchter]

I'd rather we left the side streets alone and concentrated on how to reduce traffic on the main roads as moving traffic off the side streets does not help the congestion on the main roads it just makes it worse and those vehicles being blocked from using the side streets (which are not as many as DFT data claimed previously) are now driving longer routes using more fuel and generating more pollution

Have a watch of of this and it is all explained how unjust LTNs are

You've not answered my question.

And that short video is not going to tell me anything I've not heard before.

 

[Magnus McGinty]

There’s too many cars in London. But this seems to move the pollution problem to the main roads which is great for those of us living by them. It also penalises taxis the same as private car owners but surely taxis are part of the solution not the problem?

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Must be unpleasant to come from posting this on 700 different facebook groups to universal approval (it's the same people in each group) and then get this response.

Yup.
This isn’t Streatham Mum’s Network Ian!

 

[liquidindian]

But this seems to move the pollution problem to the main roads which is great for those of us living by them.

That's a common misunderstanding but the effect is to reduce car use overall.

 

[Pickman's model]

ianarmstrong how do you feel about new build estates that have all been designed as LTNs since sometime in the 60s or 70s? Do you think we should abandon this design and return to the victorian/edwardian "every road is a through road" style design?

You know fuck all about victorian London if you think every road was a through road, you'd have been up in arms at the turnpikes and gates. And as you can tell there wasn't much in the way of town planning for most of the victorian era

 

[Magnus McGinty]

That's a common misunderstanding but the effect is to reduce car use overall.

I’ve never owned a car. But being forced to sit in traffic in an electric or hybrid taxi amongst SUVs seems a bit wrong headed imo. Taxi useage will reduce car ownership.

 

[ianarmstrong]

You've not answered my question.

And that short video is not going to tell me anything I've not heard before.

Your questions attempt to put words in my mouth so I will answer you by stating my position.

The congestion and pollution is much higher on the main/boundary roads than it ever was on the side streets so it makes no sense to move more traffic from the less congested and less polluted side streets to the already busier main/boundary roads.

The less affluent people are more likely to live and/or walk and/or seek out public transport on the main/boundary roads so it is unjust to push more traffic to those locations.

The more affluent people are more likely to live on the side streets so it is unjust to gift them traffic free roads at the expense of the less affluent people by pushing the traffic from the more affluent roads to the less affluent roads - that is unjust.

If there were any safety issues on those side roads then those safety issues should be addressed more directly rather than by just shifting the traffic to other roads which are actually residential roads too so it is unjust to simply shift a problem to another residential road which happens to be an already busier main/boundary road.

 

[teuchter]

Just a note for anyone arriving on this thread with the feeling that they have some new LTN arguments to add to the table, there's a pre-existing LTN thread here where you can double check that your argument has not already been presented and dismissed. There are about 9,500 posts to get through so if you can do about 10 seconds per post you should be able to complete your research in only a little over 24 hours.

 

[liquidindian]

Alternatively there's a quicker read of the usual suspects here: Mythbusters: eight common objections to LTNs – and why they are wrong

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Of course one thing that could reduce traffic on the main boundary roads is the majority of drivers making the slightest effort to not drive so much. The traffic is not caused by LTNs - it’s caused by cars.

 

[friedaweed]

Just a note for anyone arriving on this thread with the feeling that they have some new LTN arguments to add to the table, there's a pre-existing LTN thread here where you can double check that your argument has not already been presented and dismissed. There are about 9,500 posts to get through so if you can do about 10 seconds per post you should be able to complete your research in only a little over 24 hours.

Was the rice question considered in any depth?

 

[teuchter]

Your questions attempt to put words in my mouth so I will answer you by stating my position.

The congestion and pollution is much higher on the main/boundary roads than it ever was on the side streets so it makes no sense to move more traffic from the less congested and less polluted side streets to the already busier main/boundary roads.

So, by this logic, we should move some traffic from the busy congested polluted main roads (red lines on my diagram) to the less congested and less polluted side streets (green roads on my diagram) because this will reduce the congestion and pollution on the main roads.

The less affluent people are more likely to live and/or walk and/or seek out public transport on the main/boundary roads so it is unjust to push more traffic to those locations.

Again, by this logic, it is just to move some of the pollution from the main roads to the green ones on my diagram.

The more affluent people are more likely to live on the side streets so it is unjust to gift them traffic free roads at the expense of the less affluent people by pushing the traffic from the more affluent roads to the less affluent roads - that is unjust.

Again, as it is unjust to gift the (most likely more affluent) people on the green roads traffic free streets, we should move some of the traffic from the busy main roads onto them.

If there were any safety issues on those side roads then those safety issues should be addressed more directly rather than by just shifting the traffic to other roads which are actually residential roads too so it is unjust to simply shift a problem to another residential road which happens to be an already busier main/boundary road.

So we should address any safety issues on the green roads at the same time as shifting the extra traffic onto them; as long as we just do that there are no big problems.

So, it looks like you would be in favour of removing the blocks on Baytree Rd and Strathleven Rd, so that the traffic can flow along them again, removing some of the pollution that is unjustly imposed on Brixton Hill and Acre Lane as a result of the currently existing blocks. It seems like you don't want to actually say you are in favour, for some reason, but it seems clear that it would fit with your thinking.

 

[teuchter]

My understanding is that domestos also wants through traffic allowed back onto Baytree Rd and Strathleven Rd. Of course they are free to correct me if that's wrong and explain why they want to impose extra pollution and congestion on the residents of Acre Lane and Brixton Hill, by keeping these unjust blocks in place.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Just a note for anyone arriving on this thread with the feeling that they have some new LTN arguments to add to the table, there's a pre-existing LTN thread here where you can double check that your argument has not already been presented and dismissed. There are about 9,500 posts to get through so if you can do about 10 seconds per post you should be able to complete your research in only a little over 24 hours.

Don’t invite him in!

 

[ianarmstrong]

So, by this logic, we should move some traffic from the busy congested polluted main roads (red lines on my diagram) to the less congested and less polluted side streets (green roads on my diagram) because this will reduce the congestion and pollution on the main roads.

Again, by this logic, it is just to move some of the pollution from the main roads to the green ones on my diagram.

Again, as it is unjust to gift the (most likely more affluent) people on the green roads traffic free streets, we should move some of the traffic from the busy main roads onto them.

So we should address any safety issues on the green roads at the same time as shifting the extra traffic onto them; as long as we just do that there are no big problems.

So, it looks like you would be in favour of removing the blocks on Baytree Rd and Strathleven Rd, so that the traffic can flow along them again, removing some of the pollution that is unjustly imposed on Brixton Hill and Acre Lane as a result of the currently existing blocks. It seems like you don't want to actually say you are in favour, for some reason, but it seems clear that it would fit with your thinking.

View attachment 364864

Again you are putting words in my mouth and you seem to be trying to trap me into your perceived opinion of my views.

I would EITHER remove the wide area LTNs and start again OR reduce the draconian nature of the wide are LTNs and make them peak time only restrictions but give residents exemptions then address any safety issues on the side streets and use carrots not sticks to persuade and help people and businesses and community organisations that can to switch to active travel and emissions free transport options

What do you think of these suggestions as an alternate to wide area LTNs - they would in my opinion also help to reduce pollution from motor vehicles as well as reduce the number of vehicle journeys in general across London?

1. Add speed bumps that do actually slow vehicles down - Court Lane, Townley, New Pk Rd, Telford Avenue are good examples of that
2. Use planters to reduce the width of the roads with one direction have right of way over the other to slow down vehicles
3. Make short cuts less desirable to staying on the main road by making certain roads one way (with speed calming measures that work) and redirecting traffic flow with use of selective no entry signs on some roads to make the through route longer - use a traffic flow simulation system to determine the best options
5. Work with satnavs companies to persuade them not to direct traffic down residential roads except in emergencies or work out what road rerouting rerouting would result in this outcome
6. Provide school buses or walking convoys to help children get to/from school for parents who are time constrained or need help with transport
7. Lobby to extend ULEZ to cover the whole of London but provide assistance and exemptions to people and businesses to help them switch to ULEZ compliant vehicles - the scrapage scheme should be open to all and there should be a trade-in scheme too set up in conjunction with car dealers to help people upgrade to compliant vehicles
8. Add EV charging points on every lamppost on every street - this is starting to happen on some roads in Lambeth
9. Provide support for people and business to switch to EVs and ULEZ compliant vehicles - trade-in or scrappage
10. Push for Hydrogen fuelled vehicles as an alternate to petrol/diesel/hybrid/EVs
11. Upgrade traffic lights to prioritise cyclists and make them intelligent enough to spot vehicles waiting too long on a red light when the flow through the green light is low
12. Install hire bikes near all shopping parades and selected residential streets
13. Install cargo bikes for hire in supermarket car parks and selected residential streets
14. Install hire passenger bikes and scooters outside all schools and selected residential streets to provide parent with an option to get their children to/from school
15. Replace bike hangers on residential streets with double decker versions thus doubling the capacity overnight
16. Force Deliveroo/UberEats/etc organisations to provide an emissions free/non motor vehicle option for local deliveries
17. Provide incentives to local businesses to use emissions free/non motor vehicle options for local deliveries
18. Convert all public transport busses to be emissions free - there are plans to achieve this by 2037 in London - needs to happen sooner
19. Improve public transport and make it cheaper - long term goal
20. Make all tube/train stations step free - long term goal as finances permit
22. Modify buses so they can carry more of the less able to walk such as those with buggies, wheelchairs or the elderly - long term goal as finances permit
24. Provide support to less affluent people to make use of alternate modes of transport
25. Plant more trees and shrubs near or at the side of busy roads to absorb co2 emissions
26. Force all petrol station companies to provide a drive carbon neutral scheme where they plant trees to offset the emissions generated by the fuel they sell

If the councils and government proactively worked on the above items I believe there would be fewer people driving motor vehicles, significantly less pollution being generated by motor vehicles and a reduction in the congestion on the main roads.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Are the new LTNs too big, is that the problem?. What’s the optimum size for an LTN?

 

[teuchter]

Again you are putting words in my mouth and you seem to be trying to trap me into your perceived opinion of my views.

You are entirely free to explain where my thinking is going wrong, in my interpretation of your views. I have set it out quite clearly for you.

I know you don't want to say you want to increase traffic on residential streets - who would? Your problem is that it's where the arguments you are presenting end up.

After all, if you want to take out the recently introduced LTNs, you want to put traffic back onto residential streets. You can't dispute that.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Are the new LTNs too big, is that the problem?. What’s the optimum size for an LTN?

??

 

[klang]

x

 

[klang]

Are the new LTNs too big, is that the problem?. What’s the optimum size for an LTN?

<--------->, roughly

 

[weepiper]

Modal filters on all the roads. Fuck cars altogether.

 

[liquidindian]

a big list

So you want to do absolutely everything but just stop short, very, very short of modal filters. Everything is sensible, just those three little letters L, T and N, are completely unacceptable. To me, this is starting to feel more like being part of a group, the anti-LTN gang, than an actual campaign against anything.

I guess this whole thing was the first time a lot of people met their neighbours, felt a part of a movement. Explains a lot, really.

 

[Wilf]

Bungle73 would have been all over this.

 

[ianarmstrong]

So you want to do absolutely everything but just stop short, very, very short of modal filters. Everything is sensible, just those three little letters L, T and N, are completely unacceptable. To me, this is starting to feel more like being part of a group, the anti-LTN gang, than an actual campaign against anything.

I guess this whole thing was the first time a lot of people met their neighbours, felt a part of a movement. Explains a lot, really.

The thing I would not do would be to block all through routes and force all traffic to drive around the LTN doing more miles and using up more fuel just to gift the more affluent people living inside the LTN traffic free streets - maybe some through routes could be blocked or altered as I suggested but not all and not 24/7 - maybe there could be some peak time only blockages but not the whole area - and do not block residents as they are not through traffic they are access traffic so should not be treated as if they are non-locals - if locals are just using their cars to travel to the end of the road and back then find out the truth and find out how many local journeys are truly feasible journeys to switch to active travel rather than assume and if you want locals to use active travel modes then provide the options, infrastructure and incentives or improve public transport links where it is weak as even though we are in London public transport is not as good as the centre of Brixton all over the borough of Lambeth

 

[ianarmstrong]

You are entirely free to explain where my thinking is going wrong, in my interpretation of your views. I have set it out quite clearly for you.

I know you don't want to say you want to increase traffic on residential streets - who would? Your problem is that it's where the arguments you are presenting end up.

After all, if you want to take out the recently introduced LTNs, you want to put traffic back onto residential streets. You can't dispute that.

Your logic is flawed as you assume that if I believe point A then I must believe point B and if I believe point C then I must believe point D and that is way too simplistic - peoples views are more nuanced than your logic allows for.

You ignored all the suggestions I made to help reduce traffic, congestion and pollution without any discussion - I'd bet there are many things in that list that you agree with!

There are so many issues caused by these wide area LTNs but maybe you are too entrenched to see that or accept that mitigations are needed to address some of these negative issues!

Here is a list of the issues that hundreds of people across Lambeth reported to the Lambeth council during the LTN consultations but these were essentially ignored and swept under the carpet as Lambeth council seemed to have decided they were going to impose these LTNs irrespective of the issues they cause which demonstrates a lack of duty of care for the residents they are responsible for:

 

[A380]

ianarmstrong I’ve skimmed this thread and think I’ve got the gist of it; you seem very keen on these LTM things. Which is great.

 

[maomao]

Your logic is flawed as you assume that if I believe point A then I must believe point B and if I believe point C then I must believe point D and that is way too simplistic - peoples views are more nuanced than your logic allows for.

You ignored all the suggestions I made to help reduce traffic, congestion and pollution without any discussion - I'd bet there are many things in that list that you agree with!

There are so many issues caused by these wide area LTNs but maybe you are too entrenched to see that or accept that mitigations are needed to address some of these negative issues!

Here is a list of the issues that hundreds of people across Lambeth reported to the Lambeth council during the LTN consultations but these were essentially ignored and swept under the carpet as Lambeth council seemed to have decided they were going to impose these LTNs irrespective of the issues they cause which demonstrates a lack of duty of care for the residents they are responsible for:

View attachment 364877

Where's that from? Professional surveys tend to be done by people who can spell. You accuse others of cherry picking data but your only sources are some bloke in a 15 minute video who has obviously picked data to support his argument and now a clearly home made survey.

 

[PR1Berske]

I've yet to see anybody online who opposes LTNs who doesn't subsequently turn out to be a lunatic, or an obsessive, or a conspiracy theorist, or some form of anti-everything nutjob, or otherwise linked to bizarre-o world silliness.

As said on here before, "They're gonna take ma car!" is just "They're gonna take ma guns!" in British.

 

[ianarmstrong]

I've yet to see anybody online who opposes LTNs who doesn't subsequently turn out to be a lunatic, or an obsessive, or a conspiracy theorist, or some form of anti-everything nutjob, or otherwise linked to bizarre-o world silliness.

As said on here before, "They're gonna take ma car!" is just "They're gonna take ma guns!" in British.

You can end your search now then