It’s very problematic.
In SE23 - Devonshire Road, Ewelme Toad, Woodcombe Crescent, Tyson Road and several others have suffered big increases in traffic because of decisions elsewhere e.g. Manor Mount, Wood Vale, and the latest one Dulwich Village - which is increasing traffic in Lordship Lane, Forest Hill Road and other routes in Forest Hill and most especially in East Dulwich.
One seemingly insurmountable problem we have with traffic flow throughout SE London of course is the surface railway system that creates pinch points where the few roads that cross it, generally by the stations miles apart, are joined by others eg Dartmouth and Devonshire joining the South Circular; this is what creates localized pollution, rat-running etc and how you cure that to the satisfaction of all local people is way beyond me.
The local elections in both Lewisham and Southwark will be the deciding factor in whether these schemes continue. I fear if Labour get back in in Southwark, they’ll extend the LTN to cover streets on the eastern side of Lordship Lane bordering Forest Hill. Already Underhill Road is a nightmare in the peaks, along with the London Road end of Wood Vale as cars are using them as alternative routes to avoid the traffic on Lordship Lane/London Road.
There’s a pattern here of both Labour councils consulting, but not really listening to residents concerns, instead pandering to pro-cycling and environmental groups to which they have an ideological mutual understanding who seem to ignore the fact that the main roads in south London don’t have the capacity to cope with the extra traffic which used to use those lesser used roads as arteries to keep the roads flowing.
They’re pandering to the pro cycling active travel prime minister and government policy promoting LTNs
Read the foreword by the PM 
This post was flagged and is temporarily hidden.
This post was flagged and is temporarily hidden.
I think it’s important to recognise that just because a scheme is well intended, and has noble aims which most people agree with, doesn’t mean that:
a) it can’t be legitimately critisised without those raising concerns being derided
b) the scheme itself is or is not a failure. It can be poorly implemented and / or planned and with the speed these were introduced these are more likely.
I’m personally in favour of school streets - the one outside Stillness Infant / Junior School is a great example which I expect has stopped some people driving but also has made the road outside the school much safer for children. This is course doens’t mean all school streets will work.
In terms of LTNS, it is hard to find their true objective and any real statistics against them. I do have a concern that quite a few local schools are on main roads eg Dalmain. If more cars are pushed onto main roads where a significant proportion of children spend most of their day Mon-Fri then this surely cannot be a good thing. Perhaps a dual approach is needed as main roads fall outside the LTN, but these things should be taking into account when reviewing the overall picture.
What does this mean? Not everyone’s choice of news but certainly no less trustworthy than any other mainstream newspaper.
An anecdote: I spent some time at a high school in the US. I remember a history class which was covering forms of government. One lesson had UK as a classic example of socialism on the blackboard. This was quite a shock to me coming from Thatcher’s Britain but the definitive signs were all there listed.
My point is, whether this was meant pejoratively or not, actions which have social good intention do not make them socialist per se and how one defines that anyway really depends on where you stand. So, not helpful to the discussion IMHO.
True but most impact is historic IMO. LTNs are not new, they are decades old. Only the name is new. People have got so used to the ones already extant that they are not bothered by them anymore, in fact the residents quietly enjoy them.
In the case of Devonshire and environs, there are extensive LTNs directly over the tracks, Grierson and Garthorne etc. This has been covered on this site before and I wish that the same principle could be extended.
That’s a fair point, and a good example around Garthorne etc (though there are periodic reports of people speeding / racing down those roads as they have less traffic). I guess it’s slightly easier there as borded on on side by the railway so a natural barrier so in a recatangle on side has a natural LTN, you make one other side blocked and there is no point going through. I suspect this is harder to do in other places.
It’s as biased as the right-wing press. The Guardian is an echo-chamber newspaper that follows the mantra of socialism is right and everyone else is wrong. See the Morning Star which really does wear it on it’s sleeve.
The fact remains that The Guardian will publish what it feels is ideologically right and in this instance of their LTN piece, on the ground they don’t reflect what is published in that article.
If you want a newspaper that doesn’t pander to the Tories or Labour, the ‘i’ Newspaper is the only one that isn’t biased, despite being owned by the Daily Mail.
With regards to this topic, supporters of these schemes have been either champagne socialists who can afford to support socialist policies without affecting them financially or hardcore environmentalists who want to take us back to the stone age and see cars, even those who have EV cars as evil and I say this as someone who uses public transport or walk as my main way of travel.
I’m not a Tory by any means, but from what I’ve dealt with on this topic, I’ve had to learn a lot about how ideological LTNs are and the people who support these schemes regardless of the practicality in the real world.
Lewisham is very pro-car in comparison to other inner London borough’s, even if the powers that be claim to be supportive of alternative modes of transport.
There may not be any cycling lanes in this part of the borough but there are in others e.g. on Lewisham High St going towards Catford between the junction with Morley Rd and the junction with Ladywell Rd and on Molesworth St in Lewisham in the direction of the station!
I agree with your final statement even though I am a Guardian reading cyclist.
The Guardian, socialists, the pro-cycling lobby and even our great prime minister are not always right and it is right to ask questions and above all we should ensure schemes work.
Many would say that Lewisham is very pro-car but I think the real problem is they can’t do the basics and lack ambition.
As they seem to fail by doing too many things, they should just try and do one thing well which I think most people would agree is the FH station crossing. It is the one thing we all share whether we walk, cycle or drive locally.
The winners enjoy them, I don’t think everyone has got used to them.
Sadly, have to agree.
This may be true, but there’s actually less traffic than there was before.
https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/improving-our-streets/live-projects/dulwich-review
Have a look at the actual traffic monitoring from Southwark.
And let’s not forget that ‘high traffic density’ you mention comes from increased car use in the last decade. What you think is not normal is simply due to more and more cars.
The original link I posted was from a piece of academic research and was reported on in the Guardian - it’s not a ‘socialist’ viewpoint, it’s purely researched facts not opinion.
I’m also in favour of widening the ULEZ, whether it reduces traffic or reduces pollution from existing traffic, either is a small win and move in the right direction. Especially those of us who need to breathe to get around. And yes I have a car, yes I pay ULEZ charges, I just rarely use it.
Also note one of the other images from the research showing traffic increase in some locations:
I think this is the crux of the problems with many of these LTN’s; there are winners and losers.
At least the ULEZ expansion will cover everything equally and remove pollution directly, rather than risk pushing it around, or even increasing it.
.Reduce some sources of pollution but NOT remove any.
