Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
LTN..is it mad? Or is that me?
New LTN started today. I was working at the beginning of Langham Road, and had a small job on Cornwall Road just off St Anne's. So instead of a two minute drive, I had to drive all the way along West Green Road to Duckett's Common, turn down Green Lanes and thence all the way along St Anne's.There was a long queue of traffic and it took twenty minutes. That's 20 minutes of wasted time, and 20minutes of additional fumes along the route. So the traffic is merely displaced to major roads along with additional pollution for the residents there. Not sure what the benefit is...
Tags for Forum Posts: low traffic neighbourhoods, traffic
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Rosamund Tomlins on
-
Public transport is already chock full. Buses can't move in the increased traffic. In Tottenham only the 318, W4, & W5 go along any side roads. The short hop fare benefit (take another bus within an hour & it's free of charge) is now eroded as journeys now take longer. I don't own a car but do need to occasionally be a passenger in one. I'm against these particular LTNs because of their extreme nature. I'm pro discouraging usage of cars for unnecessary journeys, but with the price of petrol as it is, many people ae reducing their driving anyway.
-
Permalink Reply by Rory on
-
The thing is, Rosamund that one of the main reasons for introducing LTNs is precisely to "discourage usage of cars for unnecessary journeys". The sad fact is that our society is obsessed with car usage, for obvious reasons of convenience and ease of use, and 'encouraging' people to use their cars less has had no impact at all. Sadly, car drivers have to be forced to use their cars less, for all the reasons given throughout this thread.
-
-
"Forcing" people is a bit authoritarian don't you think? Sure some people don't really need a car in an objective sense but it's their right to have one if they want. By all means encourage people to go electric but there is a core of people who really do need cars for their work and family obligations as well as for personal enjoyment. Not everyone works close to where they live nor do they always live close to where they need or want to be for personal reasons. I personally don't want us to return to a feudal society where you rarely visit people in the next village and going into central London is a pilgrimage.
-
-
It depends on your perspective, I guess, Gordon. Car use is a massive contributor to climate change, and using petrol and diesel cars less is very good for the environment. People, of course have a right to a car if they want one, but equally they have a right to smoke if they want to. Does that mean that driving and smoking should be encouraged, for libertarian reasons? I personally think not. If car use is going up, and car use is bad for the environment, what's your solution, if you think forcing people to use their cars less is too authoritarian? Years and years of clearly demonstrating the environmental cost of all this car use has had no impact on car use. (I think, also, that London's famously extensive public transport system of buses, tubes, boats and trains, alongside the preponderance of cheap commercial bike hire would probably help avoid that feudal thing you're concerned about.)
-
-
Like I said. Put a temporary ban on driving schools and those that own and use petro chemical vehicles. To impose this would really be an instrument of authorionism. Maybe that is the future, but allowing this will lead to real abuses of power no?
-
-
Missing my point there Rory - the alternatives aren't correctly in place to enable these LTNs to be reasonable. Public transport has been significantly reduced, for many many good reasons but the effects are all to reduce quality of life, going about one's daily business, instead of improving things now.
The real issue is too many people crammed together & the whole infrastructure is out of balance.
-
-
It is the case for the majority of residents living in the area though. Only a minority of residents have access to a car.
-
Permalink Reply by James Hawtin on
-
Sorry modern life uses motorised transport, yes you might not have car, but I feel pretty sure you like deliveries, online shopping, home delivery of food etc and the qualify of you life requires motor vehicle access to your house. While visits to a single property might be "easy" enough (of course they did drive by other peoples houses to get just to yours). Its more efficient and greener for a delivery driver to do a round and now they need to drive to 4 or 5 difference entrances to service an LTN. As I said poor implementation, not a poor idea.
Its not just deliveries its carers for old people, builders, taxis, uber, etc.
-
-
I think my problem with the LTN is not them existing its in there implementation. The system should work of people who live in the LTNs or visiting them, but stop people from "rat running" them. For me the LTN seem have been implemented with modern surveillance systems, but using only classic approaches of blocking roads and dividing space into smaller areas.
What would have seemed a far better implementation would have been to allowing traffic to enter the LTN from any point and so long as you exit from same point you don't get fined. Also if you enter the LTN so long as you do not leave the area in under 10 minutes you can then leave by any exit. Most car parks already use such technology if you drive into a carpark and cannot find a space so don't pay and just leave you don't get fined and it all works by a simple timer. In our case its you need to stay for more than a time rather than less.
This would help delivery drivers, carers, people with mobility issues visiting the people and the area which includes 4 parks!
-
-
Interesting ideas but I guess the issue is how do you get that across on a road sign?
-
-
"Low Traffic Area XYZ
Access ONLY
30 minutes Min Stay or
EXIT by same route"
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
