I think it is the same today, the same peer pressure means very few kids at secondary school today want Mum and Dad driving them there.
Iām unclear what this means - where will the zone boundary be now? Sorry if Iām being stupid!
From the linked Guardian article above:
So I guess the details are to be worked out - though they have almost 2 years in which to do itā¦
I would have thought at the very least it would be everything inside the M25 to give it a clear boundary. Huge assumption.
1 Like
Oh thanks. It almost sounded from the thread title as though a random extension to the zone had suddenly happened but I think thatās just the way I was reading it!
1 Like
It will be expanded to the London LEZ which is approximately the M25 but not always.
2 Likes
I actually thought the same at first too.
I agree but TfL would need political support from many areas outside London. I wouldnāt underestimate the challenge of getting all the stars aligned on this.
This was a sticking point in the past when handing over some Southern services to TfL was proposed. The Transport Secretary at the time, MP for Epsom and Ewell, was concerned about his affected Surrey constituents not being able to elect the Mayor which was at least one of the reasons why it didnāt happen.
Out of interest, how are ULEZ charges enforced within the boundary? As far as Iām aware, there is a tight cordon of cameras at the boundary itself but not many within the zone. Presumably this would also have to be thought about as the area is much larger and I would expect more cars being registered in Outer London, e.g. to pick up any journeys like Crystal Palace to Bell Green?
I think this is an excellent question, and i suspect the answer is that cameras are not present on many of the boundary roads, let alone random points within the zone. However, TfL is relying on general compliance of Londoners and the risk of getting caught (and getting a large fine) if you happen to pass one of their monitoring cameras.
But i think they have been more complete with the road signage than with cameras. For example Havelock Walk has a sign saying it is part of the ULEZ but i doubt there is a camera to ensure compliance - it wouldnāt be sensible, especially if the boundary is to move next year - making any cameras and road signs obsolete.
But i suspect there are some people getting away with driving non-compliant vehicles in the ULEZ and getting away with it, just like not every car that speeds or jumps traffic lights or parks illegally is caught or fined.
The move to the GLA boundary, rather than the M25, is because that where the GLA authority stops. They couldnāt make the boundary the M25 as it is just outside the GLA area. But there is already the old LEZ for lorries at the GLA boundary, so most of the infrastructure for expansion is already there. The only question is why was the initial phase of the ULEZ set at the south circular rather than the GLA boundary - it canāt just have been about ensuring Khanās vote didnāt collapse in Outer London in the last mayoral elections - or can it?
2 Likes
Perhaps he is just being political/expedient or someone has reminded him of what he has said in the past and that he has a responsibility to all Londoners not just those in inner London.
"But pollution isnāt just a central London problem. Everyone should have the right to breathe clean air.
It is an issue of social justice - with the poorest Londoners, and Londoners from ethnic minority backgrounds least likely to own a car but worst affected by toxic air.
I think the attitude and understanding of most people has changed with the imposition of pollution/traffic displacement policies that just move the problem on.
It will be interesting to see when he is prepared to come out and say that all vehicles should be charged as the current ULEZ is making a lot less money than expected and he needs to balance the budget for transport.
And that is what weāre seeing not just in FH/Sydenham, but in Dulwich where the controversial LTN schemes in Dulwich Village and East Dulwich have sent traffic along boundary roads where social housing is prevalent.
Personally I donāt think LTNs work as theyāre socially divisive where poorer people are worst affected, but I donāt think the ULEZ will work either. The Congestion Charge initially worked in bringing down traffic during the day, but businesses and other vehicle owners would rather pay, so instead of having certain groups whoād rather see vehicles banned all together, we need to get people driving hybrids, electric cars while improving cycle routes and public transport with some form of timed access to side roads rather than blocking roads 24/7 which donāt work.
2 Likes
Apparently thatās an urban myth perpetuated by a vocal minority of anti-LTN groups.
2 Likes
Considering that report is The Guardian which supports socialist schemes, Iād take that with a pinch of salt.
The Dulwich LTN has seen high density of traffic on boundary roads with social housing increase, the same pattern is happening on Mayow Road which has social housing.
Pro LTN supporters base their reasoning on ideological than practical reasoning to resolve air quality issues which continue to affect the poorest people across London in Labour held councils.
2 Likes
If you have a couple of spare days pop over to the East Dulwich forum and read the LTN thread. It highlights perfectly the Lies, damned lies and statistics quote. It also has more than a whiff of snobbery and inverted snobbery about it.
I donāt think you need stats to appreciate that where ever you put a boundary it will inevitably displace whatever you are trying to prevent to that boundary and the areas outside of the boundary.
2 Likes
I can see both sides to this.
One of the main arguments for LTNs has got to be that they are a deterrent to car usage in the first place because of their (albeit small) impact on average journey times. Alas, I suspect this might not be such a good selling point to Joe Bloggs.
At a more personal level, as a parent Iām much more concerned about safety on residential roads as they usually have poorer sightlines and lighting as well, and the fact that there seems to be a strong correlation between rat-running and speeding. LTNs can provide a level of protection away from main roads, as long as they include a ban of scooters.
Ultimately, it all comes down to the fact that London, and South London in particular, hasnāt got a capable trunk road system that is separated from where people live, move around and work in a way that other major cities have. Driving anywhere outside London that isnāt towards the M2/M20, you will, despite setting off close to a red route, undoubtedly be sent along back streets, bouncing over hundreds of speed bumps along the way. I canāt think of any other place where this is the case. This, alongside the existence of motor vehicle traffic in its own right, has created the issue of heavy traffic in residential areas in the first place. But we are where we are.
Iām yet to be convinced by the effectiveness of LTNs in the round. However, there probably arenāt that many options to do something with the seemingly never-ending budgetary stranglehold. Some form of smart road pricing has got to be the answer eventually.
In terms of those affected, I think we can probably all agree on the fact that LTNs produce winners and losers, even without considering road users.
3 Likes
Agreed, the South Circular is an ad hoc patchwork. The South and North Circular roads need to be replaced by a circular road system in tunnels. Unfortunately there is no political advocacy for this.
2 Likes
Or money to pay for it.
2 Likes
As seen today with the temporary traffic lights on the London Road/Devonshire Road/Dartmouth Road T-junction, it doesnāt take much for the traffic to easily build up and combined with the Dulwich LTN, traffic and the stench of petrol goes from London Road, past Hornimans onto Lordship Lane past The Grove up to Dulwich Library with no alternative routes also affecting local bus routes. Iāve seen 356ās going to Lower Sydenham only and the P4 to Ladywell.
Money can always be found when there is the political will to raise it.
I think people believe what they see locally rather than what they read in The Guardian.
We have an LTN/School Street that divides a local road into winners and losers with the affluent school with 1 in 10 recieving free school meals included and the not so affluent school with 1 in 3 recieving school meals excluded.
I am not anti-LTN. If the scheme is good, let local people decide and value their judgement. It has worked in a lot of other London boroughs where LTNs have been retained or scrapped leading to community support whereas Lewisham are likely to face a judicial review on the permanent retention of the Lee Green LTN after they ignored the views of the majority.
In the interests of fairness, I think we should swap round the divisive local LTNs every 2 years.
On Thorpewood, move the school street from the top to the bottom benefitting the less affluent school, reverse the LTN/road closure so it stops downward traffic
On Silverdale, change the LTN to Mayow Road benefitting FHS
1 Like