Author Topic: LTNs - BMJ article  (Read 2810 times)

Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #50 on: March 24, 2021, 12:14:51 am »
It's maybe a bit awkward for drivers, because the rat runs exist for a reason - East Oxford is kinda higgldy pigldy and while getting from the centre outwards (and vice versa) is easy, going perpendicular to that is restricted to only a few roads (now, the only way to get between Iffley and Cowley roads will be the ring road, Church Cowley Road (also residential, busy), and Magdalen road (also residential, brutal speed bumps), if you don't get into the mess of tiny residential roads near the plain).

Ideally you want the non-filtered roads to be chokka most of the day already, because your goal isn't to rearrange traffic, it's to reduce it.

Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #51 on: March 24, 2021, 07:52:00 am »
Agreed short local trips by car should be harder than by foot, bike or bus.

Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #52 on: March 24, 2021, 07:57:54 am »
LTN?
Low Traffic Neighbourhood. You create one by taking all the rat runs and bunging a giant planter in the middle of the road so cars can't get past (but bikes and pedestrians can).
Good idea. Could do with one on my road, as traffic is using it as a short cut to get to parts of
Gloucester and the M5.

Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #53 on: March 24, 2021, 08:46:24 am »
LTN?
Low Traffic Neighbourhood. You create one by taking all the rat runs and bunging a giant planter in the middle of the road so cars can't get past (but bikes and pedestrians can).
Good idea. Could do with one on my road, as traffic is using it as a short cut to get to parts of
Gloucester and the M5.

I’m not sure about the legality of a non-consulted DIY LTN, or even a street level consulted DIY LTN, but it’s certainly very tempting.

Has anyone else had these thoughts?

ian

  • feat. Undead Jess & Finestre, Queen of Hell
Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #54 on: March 24, 2021, 09:28:32 am »
As anyone who's organized a street closure for a party can tell you, you need all kinds of permissions to close a street for just a day. Unless you do with bad parking, in which case no one gives much of a shit.
Support the Great Surrey Bear Census 2020

John Stonebridge

  • Has never ridden Ower the Edge
Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #55 on: March 24, 2021, 09:52:57 am »
If plans proceed our house will be inside a proposed LTN which would be excellent.  We live near one of the most polluted streets in Scotland so anything is worth a try (Id anticipate short term increase to traffic on St Johns Rd which would soon tail off) and closing local rat runs would make walking locally significantly more pleasant.

https://consultationhub.edinburgh.gov.uk/sfc/corstorphine-connections/supporting_documents/CorstorphineLTN%20consultation.pdf

Been speaking with the neighbours about it and some of the views I've heard expressed just beggar belief (but then Iv heard exactly the same arguments made by people who think they have a right to drive to work and have a parking space approximately the length of themselves away).   

   
Not surprising - Edinburgh, with a fantastic bus service, managed to vote against Congestion Charge, and splash £1bn on a Tram.

Id forgotten about the congestion charge vote which also featured similarly dispiriting conversations (and more recently discussions about the workplace parking levy though these have gone on the back burner these last 12 months for obvious reasons). 

Im a tram fan so would say that it was a decent enough idea very badly implemented (the route and stops were flawed even before costs and timescales ran out of control) I watch on with interest to see how the extension to Granton comes along.   Progress so far appears less problematic. 

       

Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #56 on: March 24, 2021, 11:32:04 am »
IIRC the Edinburgh plan wasn't really a congestion charge, simply a charge for crossing a cordon (the ring road?). It might have reduced traffic entering the city from outside, but it didn't offer a mechanism to deter road usage entirely within the boundary.

The tram might have cost a bit less if they'd settled for COTS vehicles too, rather than insisting that Edinburgh deserved tramcars custom built to be bigger and heavier than anywhere else on the planet, which had the secondary effect of ensuring there was no resale market for the trams made surplus by the restricted build. Piss poor contract and project management didn't help much either.

Kim

  • Timelord
Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #57 on: March 24, 2021, 01:09:26 pm »
I’m not sure about the legality of a non-consulted DIY LTN, or even a street level consulted DIY LTN, but it’s certainly very tempting.

Has anyone else had these thoughts?

Our street had an LTN for most of the summer after we moved in:  Some utility company digging a hole and not being very quick about filling it in.  This seems to be the way to go...
Careful, Kim. Your sarcasm's showing...

Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #58 on: March 24, 2021, 01:18:31 pm »
It's maybe a bit awkward for drivers, because the rat runs exist for a reason - East Oxford is kinda higgldy pigldy and while getting from the centre outwards (and vice versa) is easy, going perpendicular to that is restricted to only a few roads (now, the only way to get between Iffley and Cowley roads will be the ring road, Church Cowley Road (also residential, busy), and Magdalen road (also residential, brutal speed bumps), if you don't get into the mess of tiny residential roads near the plain).

Ideally you want the non-filtered roads to be chokka most of the day already, because your goal isn't to rearrange traffic, it's to reduce it.

I understand the theory. It does have an impact on the people who live on the roads you have intentionally just gridlocked.

John Stonebridge

  • Has never ridden Ower the Edge
Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #59 on: March 24, 2021, 02:09:44 pm »
IIRC the Edinburgh plan wasn't really a congestion charge, simply a charge for crossing a cordon (the ring road?). It might have reduced traffic entering the city from outside, but it didn't offer a mechanism to deter road usage entirely within the boundary.

The tram might have cost a bit less if they'd settled for COTS vehicles too, rather than insisting that Edinburgh deserved tramcars custom built to be bigger and heavier than anywhere else on the planet, which had the secondary effect of ensuring there was no resale market for the trams made surplus by the restricted build. Piss poor contract and project management didn't help much either.

IIRC the Edinburgh congestion charge proposal had two tiers - one for going into the area broadly bound by the city bypass and another higher charge for the city centre.  But I take your point, somebody could flit about between the 'burbs to their hearts content free of charge as long as they stayed out the centre.

Id not appreciated that a non standard build was also a feature of the Edinburgh Trams Fiasco TM - but it does explain why the trams feel quite different from the ones I used to use on my daily commute from Merton Park to East Croydon 2003 - 2005.   

   

Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #60 on: March 24, 2021, 02:57:05 pm »
I understand the theory. It does have an impact on the people who live on the roads you have intentionally just gridlocked.

Dude, my front door is on the A1. Diverting more traffic my way can only serve to put people off driving, and gives me nice quiet back streets to cycle and walk the dog. Bring it on.

John Stonebridge

  • Has never ridden Ower the Edge
Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #61 on: March 24, 2021, 04:24:19 pm »
I understand the theory. It does have an impact on the people who live on the roads you have intentionally just gridlocked.

Dude, my front door is on the A1. Diverting more traffic my way can only serve to put people off driving, and gives me nice quiet back streets to cycle and walk the dog. Bring it on.

I feel exactly the same about where I live (the A8 St Johns Rd EH12).       

Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #62 on: March 24, 2021, 04:51:35 pm »
I understand the theory. It does have an impact on the people who live on the roads you have intentionally just gridlocked.

Dude, my front door is on the A1. Diverting more traffic my way can only serve to put people off driving, and gives me nice quiet back streets to cycle and walk the dog. Bring it on.
I have no dog in this fight - I live far enough out of the city that this is not going to affect me at all. A few years ago I lived on one of the roads that has now become a crucial joining road and was regularly woken up by cars clattering the speed bump outside our flat.

NB - I'm not saying this is a bad idea. It's an experiment that will be reviewed in 6 months, and hopefully it will result in reduced traffic everywhere and nicer places inside the LTNs, and everyone will be happy for it to continue. I fear it will annoy enough people that it's taken away again in 6 months, and either way it will result in the main roads remaining unpleasant to cycle on.

ian

  • feat. Undead Jess & Finestre, Queen of Hell
Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #63 on: March 24, 2021, 05:06:52 pm »
You can't really reduce traffic (which benefits us all) without inconveniencing someone.
Support the Great Surrey Bear Census 2020