LTN scrapped after three-mile bus journey took two hours.

[libraryguy]

No SH 1 T Sherlock!!

A controversial low-traffic neighbourhood (LTN) scheme in south London is to be scrapped after turning a three-mile bus journey into a two-hour slog.

The scheme at Streatham Wells has been suspended by Labour-run Lambeth council after it caused huge traffic congestion in the suburb.

The authority, which announced the U-turn on Thursday, admitted that the scheme had caused an eight per cent increase in traffic on boundary roads.

One bus reportedly took 121 minutes to travel just 2.9 miles after the A23 arterial road, which runs along one side of the LTN, became heavily congested with traffic trying to avoid the scheme.

The about-turn comes after Sadiq Khan described the LTN as causing “huge problems” earlier this month. It is the first time the London Mayor has criticised one of the schemes.

Speaking after the decision, a spokesman for Mr Khan said: “The Mayor has always been clear that if road schemes need to be changed or adapted to better work for the local area, then that is the right thing to do, working with local partners and residents.”

Councillors implemented the LTN last year as part of an 18-month trial intended to improve air quality by blocking vehicles from accessing certain residential streets. After LTNs were introduced in the borough, the number of penalty charge notices more than doubled.
But local campaigners including the Lambeth LTN Watch group said the schemes displace traffic onto neighbouring roads and worsen congestion around the fringes.

The backlash, which led to protests from a 60-strong crowd outside the council’s HQ in Brixton, has forced the authority to backtrack on the scheme.

Rezina Chowdhury, the council’s deputy leader, said: “We’ve listened to the concerns raised by local people and recognise the major disruption coming as part of transport improvements on the main road running through Streatham.”

The council also blamed Thames Water roadworks for the congestion and said a segregated cycle lane was planned to replace the LTN.

Neil Garrat, the City Hall Conservative leader, said: “It is a win for all the local people who have had to put up with Labour’s LTN nonsense in Streatham, and we who pressed Labour to open their eyes and look at the disaster they created.”

Susan Hall, the Tory London mayoral candidate, said: “Sadiq Khan forced LTNs like this on Londoners, which do nothing but cause congestion and has threatened councils that have tried to get rid of them. I will listen and support councils in removing these LTNs.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...journey-hours/

[The PNP]

[B]The council also blamed Thames Water roadworks for the congestion and said a segregated cycle lane was planned to replace the LTN.]

Well, that's a win for local cyclists in the Borough!

Btw, it isn't roads that create congestion - it's the traffic on them.

[local]

LTN's are a classic case of short-thinking.

You just hope the people responsible don't use their "skills" on other areas of life.

[The PNP]

LTN's are a classic case of short-thinking.

You just hope the people responsible don't use their "skills" on other areas of life.

Fortunately, todays residential areas are designed as 'LTN's' from the outset, forestalling the danger to its residents from unwanted through-traffic.

Unfortunately, there are also many older residential areas, constructed before the advent of mass car ownership. Despite the usual wails of 'LTN's cause congestion' from the motoring fraternity, eliminating through-traffic from these areas is an increasingly common solution.

[said]

Fortunately, todays residential areas are designed as 'LTN's' from the outset, forestalling the danger of unwanted through-traffic.

Unfortunately, there are also many older residential areas, constructed before the advent of mass car ownership. Despite the usual wails of 'LTN's cause congestion' from the motoring fraternity, eliminating through-traffic from these areas is an increasingly common solution.

It was obvious that the scheme would create problems in London - but who are we to point that out.

[The PNP]

It was obvious that the scheme would create problems in London - but who are we to point that out.

Yes, back-engineering LTN schemes into older areas, will always throw up challenges......At end of day, it's simply not possible for 100% of a cities population to own/run a car, because there just isn't enough room for all those vehicles.

[Stuartli]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[The PNP]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

When what were once safe, quiet residential streets, have become twice-daily daily rat-runs for anti-social commuters speeding to-and-fro - it is broke!

[Stuartli]

When what were once safe, quiet residential streets, have become twice-daily daily rat-runs for anti-social commuters speeding to-and-fro - it is broke!

No, such traffic has been diverted quite unnecessarily from main roads to provide little used cycle lanes and have caused more problems than they could ever solve.

Go and ask, for example, the residents of Leyland Road, Alexandra Road and part of Hawkshead Street what they think of such schemes.

You may go away with a completely different point of view. Well I can have similar delusional thoughts like you, I suppose....

[The PNP]

No, such traffic has been diverted quite unnecessarily from main roads to provide little used cycle lanes and have caused more problems than they could ever solve.

Go and ask, for example, the residents of Leyland Road, Alexandra Road and part of Hawkshead Street what they think of such schemes.

You may go away with a completely different point of view. Well I can have similar delusional thoughts like you, I suppose....

Few if any, wants any more traffic past their house than necessary. Because traffic represents noise, fumes, vibration and is a danger to kids, dogs, oldies, etc.

Which of course, is why it should not be passing through residential areas. If by forcing rat-running motorists to use main roads, it creates congestion, that's because so many have chosen to drive.

[silver fox]

Few if any, wants any more traffic past their house than necessary. Because traffic represents noise, fumes, vibration and is a danger to kids, dogs, oldies, etc.

Which of course, is why it should not be passing through residential areas. If by forcing rat-running motorists to use main roads, it creates congestion, that's because so many have chosen to drive.

Amazing how so many drivers are selfish “rat runners” but cyclists must have the freedom to ride anywhere with total impunity, plus of course they should be able to take over main roads with unused and utterly pointless cycle lanes, but hey obsessive delusions are difficult to break, we should all be well accustomed to your obsessions by now.

Will you ever tire from howling at the moon, doubt it, because in your mind your way is the right and only way, guess what your support isn’t doing too well.

[The PNP]

Amazing how so many drivers are selfish “rat runners” but cyclists must have the freedom to ride anywhere with total impunity, plus of course they should be able to take over main roads with unused and utterly pointless cycle lanes, but hey obsessive delusions are difficult to break, we should all be well accustomed to your obsessions by now.

Will you ever tire from howling at the moon, doubt it, because in your mind your way is the right and only way, guess what your support isn’t doing too well.

Well, we've gone past the 1.5c point now and fyi last month was the warmest February on record. Yet Joe & Mrs Bloggs continue to turn out in his/her cars as ever.....How on earth can folk listen to Attenborough etc, laying out what's happening to the planet - then get up following day and disconnect so completely from reality?

Anyways, it's +2degs c next stop. By which time the same old people, will be saying it's too late to do anything about it. That we're doomed whatever we do - so might as well continue with our high-carbon lifestyles!

[local]

Could I just point out the "rats" often have to get to and from the main roads and sending them "the long way round" creates congestion, pollution and wastes time.

It might also be that their entire journey does not need a "main road" and to use one is a long wasteful diversion.


These rats might also be doing something useful for us all and sending them "around the houses" means we all suffer.

[The PNP]

Could I just point out the "rats" often have to get to and from the main roads and sending them "the long way round" creates congestion, pollution and wastes time.

It might also be that their entire journey does not need a "main road" and to use one is a long wasteful diversion.


These rats might also be doing something useful for us all and sending them "around the houses" means we all suffer.

Depends on the town/city/area in question.....Many towns back in the day, were set out on the 'Roman model', which has all main roads leading to a central crossroads. A radial design like the spokes of a wheel, which worked well enough when there were only pack animals and the odd horse and cart to worry about.

Jump forward to modern times, with tens of thousands of cars, trucks, etc wanting to get through and a layout like that simply can't cope. Planners in the '60's and '70's were inclined to solve this type of problem, by demolishing swathes of property and forging dual-carriageway/s right through. Destroying not only thousands of homes, but tearing the heart out of towns/cities.

Fortunately, things have (mostly) moved on since those times. Present-day logic, is to return central areas to the people by removing the bulk of traffic, which goes around via a ring-road instead. Inner destinations remain accessible by car, but driving through the central area from one side to the other is no longer tolerated.

[justbecause]

When what were once safe, quiet residential streets, have become twice-daily daily rat-runs for anti-social commuters speeding to-and-fro - it is broke!

Why can’t they simply be motorists as opposed to all the inappropriate and unnecessary insults you like to hurl?