A new cycle shelter and bike racks have been installed in Winchester.

The racks are on Kings Walk, next to Bespoke Biking and South Downs Social café, and the new shelter is in Middle Brook Street car park.

They are suitable for ordinary push bikes as well as cargo bikes and trailer parking, with a number of larger racks now available.

Cycle Winchester shared the news on Twitter yesterday, praising Winchester City Council for the new additions. The local community action group aims to make Winchester more cycle-friendly by campaigning for better cycling conditions.

Their target is to reduce traffic congestion and pollution around the city by encouraging people to travel by bike.

Winchester City Council responded to Cycle Winchester’s post on Twitter indicating that there is another bike shelter being built in Colebrook Street car park that is near completion.

The success of the council movement strategy depends on reducing car usage in the city centre, hence the expansion of park and ride and work to see how cycle routes can be improved.

Secretary for Cycle Winchester Rob Jordan said: “It’s great that there’s more capacity for parking, which is something that we’ve been asking for and waiting for, for a long time. So, I do appreciate that the city council have been pushing this along as fast as they can.

“It’s great that there are cargo cycle spaces. I know we have a number of people who are involved in Cycle Winchester who are riding alternative bikes and find it difficult to use conventional spaces,” he added.

“It feels really good, because sometimes it feels like it takes forever to get things done, so I do appreciate when something new gets delivered.”

https://www.hampshirechronicle.co.uk/news/23374207.new-bike-shelter-racks-installed-winchester-city-centre/

On 11/03/2023 06:21 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> A new fairy-cycle shelter and fairy-bike racks have been installed in Winchester.
>
> The racks are on Kings Walk, next to Bespoke Biking and South Downs Social café, and the new shelter is in Middle Brook Street car park.
>
> They are suitable for ordinary fairy-push-bikes as well as cargo fairy-bikes and trailer parking, with a number of larger racks now available.
>
> Cycle Winchester shared the news on Twitter yesterday, praising Winchester City Council for the new additions. The local community action group aims to make Winchester more fairy-cycle-friendly by campaigning for better fairy-cycling conditions.
>
> Their target is to reduce traffic congestion and pollution around the city by encouraging people to travel by fairy-bike.

Won't happen.
>
> Winchester City Council responded to Fairy-Cycle Winchester’s post on Twitter indicating that there is another fairy-bike shelter being built in Colebrook Street car park that is near completion.
>
> The success of the council movement strategy depends on reducing car usage in the city centre, hence the expansion of park and ride and work to see how fairy-cycle routes can be improved.

Won't happen.
>
> Secretary for Fairy-Cycle Winchester Rob Jordan said: “It’s great that there’s more capacity for parking, which is something that we’ve been asking for and waiting for, for a long time. So, I do appreciate that the city council have been pushing this along as fast as they can.
>
> “It’s great that there are cargo fairy-cycle spaces. I know we have a number of people who are involved in Fairy-Cycle Winchester who are riding alternative fairy-bikes and find it difficult to use conventional spaces,” he added.
>
> “It feels really good, because sometimes it feels like it takes forever to get things done, so I do appreciate when something new gets delivered.”
>
> https://www.hampshirechronicle.co.uk/news/23374207.new-bike-shelter-racks-installed-winchester-city-centre/
>

QUOTE: Their target is to reduce traffic congestion and pollution around the city by encouraging people to travel by bike. ENDS

Some LTN zones in London now have air that conforms to the WHO limits - that's good progress!

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> QUOTE: Their target is to reduce traffic congestion and pollution around
> the city by encouraging people to travel by bike. ENDS
>
> Some LTN zones in London now have air that conforms to the WHO limits -
> that's good progress!

Air Pollution: Six top tips from asthma.org.uk

Open windows if you can (be cautious on high pollen or pollution days) or
use extractor fans, especially in kitchens and bathrooms. It’ll help clear
any indoor pollutants and prevent damp and mould.

Reduce dust mites as much as possible by regularly washing bedding or using
anti-allergy covers. Read more on dust mites.

Avoid aerosols and sprays – go for non-spray cleaning and personal
products.

Avoid strong smells and chemicals – look for mild or unscented products,
and products low in VOCs (Volatile Organic Chemicals).

Don’t smoke. Cigarette smoke is a dangerous asthma trigger. And it can also
make you and your child more sensitive to other indoor triggers.

Make sure any heaters, cookers and boilers are serviced regularly. Also
make sure any new appliances are fitted properly with adequate ventilation.

--
Spike

On Saturday, March 11, 2023 at 5:19:46 PM UTC, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> QUOTE: Their target is to reduce traffic congestion and pollution around the city by encouraging people to travel by bike. ENDS
>
> Some LTN zones in London now have air that conforms to the WHO limits - that's good progress!

A low traffic neighbourhood (LTN) is a scheme where motor vehicle traffic in residential streets is greatly reduced.

This is done by minimising the amount of traffic that comes from vehicles using the streets to get to another destination. This is often referred to as ‘through-traffic’ or ‘rat-running’.

Private motorised vehicles still have easy access to all homes and businesses without driving directly through the neighbourhood.

This opens up networks of streets so people can safely travel through the area on foot, bicycle, by wheeling or by bus. Emergency vehicles can also be prioritised to reach their destinations quicker.

Traffic is reduced by using temporary or permanent barriers called “modal filters”.

These can include putting up bollards or planters. Or they can be camera operated.

Residents and businesses still have access to the neighbourhood by motor vehicle using different routes, but through-traffic is greatly reduced.

On 11/03/2023 05:19 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> QUOTE: Their target is to reduce traffic congestion and pollution around the city by encouraging people to travel by bike. ENDS
>
> Some LTN zones in London now have air that conforms to the WHO limits - that's good progress!

What makes you "think" that they didn't already?

Sorry for the perhaps unwarranted assumption underlying the question.

A Low Traffic Neighbourhood – or LTN – is a scheme introduced by the Government to try and reduce traffic in residential areas through a series of different measures.

The aim is to lower the number of vehicles on the roads, increase the number of people walking or cycling, and reduce crime.

Part of the goal is to try and cut C02 emissions in the areas where LTNs or similar schemes are introduced.
What are Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

In recent years, the Government has made a concerted effort to tackle air pollution created by vehicles and increase the number of people getting to their chosen destination by walking or cycling.

LTNs were introduced as part of this – with the additional aim of reshaping residential areas where they are installed to create a safer place for people to walk and live.

By minimising traffic caused by people ‘rat-running’ – a tactic where people use residential roads as short cuts – people who live and work in the area can access the roads quicker and easier.

The aim is to also make it easier for emergency services to travel through major cities where LTNs are in place.

Some LTN areas are also available at certain times of the day and for public transport.

The overall goal is to reduce air pollution, noise pollution, and road accidents.

Although they have been around since the 1970s, in Spring 2020, the Government announced mass funding to make these areas more prominent in the capital.

Since then, they have expanded to Bristol and Oxford – with plans for it to be expanded across the UK.

How do Low Traffic Neighbourhoods work?

LTNs use barriers, bollards, road signs, and planters to restrict cars, vans, and other vehicles, whilst allowing pedestrians and cyclists through.

Other areas where Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are in operation use automatic number plate recognition cameras.

Some areas just use signs showing they are LTNs and/or display warning signs that drives could be fined for travelling through these roads.
How are LTN areas chosen?

Initially, the Low Traffic Neighbourhood scheme was introduced by London Mayor Sadiq Khan in early 2020 following £250m in government funding.

Khan’s plan was to make London a healthier, safer, more inclusive, cleaner, and greener city – and make 80% of all trips by active or sustainable modes by 2041.

They are all funded by the Department for Transport (DfT).

Following their introduction, Bristol and Oxford introduced their own LTNs.

More cities such as Manchester, Birmingham and Sheffield have applied to funding from DfT to introduce their own schemes.
Are LTNs permanent?

Most Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes that have been introduced with temporary measures in order to gain data to see if they should be made permanent..

Following the consultation period, many across London have been made into permanent fixtures – creating LTN areas.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> QUOTE: Their target is to reduce traffic congestion and pollution around
> the city by encouraging people to travel by bike. ENDS
>
> Some LTN zones in London now have air that conforms to the WHO limits -
> that's good progress!

What are the WHO limits?

--
Spike

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> A Low Traffic Neighbourhood – or LTN – is a scheme introduced by the
> Government to try and reduce traffic in residential areas through a
> series of different measures.

> The aim is to lower the number of vehicles on the roads, increase the
> number of people walking or cycling, and reduce crime.

They should try some in Amsterdam, Centrum is orange today for PM2.5.

--
Spike

Spending on a popular Stoke Newington shopping street has risen since the introduction of green traffic measures, according to Town Hall bosses.

Mastercard payments on Church Street went up post-pandemic by more than 200 per cent compared to before the outbreak.

Hackney Council used anonymised bank card data as part of its analysis of the low traffic neighbourhood (LTN) on Church Street, which is known for its choice of independent shops and restaurants.

The LTN was introduced in autumn of 2021 to help with social distancing but also to reduce carbon emissions from motor vehicles as part of the council’s response to the climate emergency.

Some of the spending increase is down to a rise in contactless payments, and also inflation, but Town Hall bosses said it points to economic success and a “positive impact on retail”.

They said studies show that spending goes up when high streets are improved for pedestrians.

Retail giant Amazon told the council that LTNs have encouraged its move towards electric deliveries.

“It’s driving wider change,” said economic development manager Michael Toyer.

Cllr Mete Coban, cabinet member for environment and transport, cautioned that “there will be different impacts for different businesses”.

He said the council is working with Stoke Newington Business Association to find out more about the LTN’s impact on their takings.

He added that moves such as widening pavements, road crossings and parklets for people to enjoy meals and drinks outdoors have helped footfall rise by 18 per cent, with cycling up by 36-39 per cent.

Cllr Coban told the skills, economy and growth scrutiny commission this week that “Church Street is doing very well”.

Coban grew up in Stoke Newington and is now a councillor there, but he said the area was “never that buzzing” during his childhood.

On 12/03/2023 11:32 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> Spending on a popular Stoke Newington shopping street has risen since the introduction of green traffic measures, according to Town Hall bosses.
>
> Mastercard payments on Church Street went up post-pandemic by more than 200 per cent compared to before the outbreak.

Hahahaha!

Just like every other supermarket, filling station and shop in the UK,
then (as compared with before the pandemic).

No-one of any importance uses cash any more.

> Hackney Council used anonymised bank card data as part of its analysis of the low traffic neighbourhood (LTN) on Church Street, which is known for its choice of independent shops and restaurants.
> The LTN was introduced in autumn of 2021 to help with social distancing but also to reduce carbon emissions from motor vehicles as part of the council’s response to the climate emergency.
> Some of the spending increase is down to a rise in contactless payments, and also inflation, but Town Hall bosses said it points to economic success and a “positive impact on retail”.
> They said studies show that spending goes up when high streets are improved for pedestrians.
> Retail giant Amazon told the council that LTNs have encouraged its move towards electric deliveries.
> “It’s driving wider change,” said economic development manager Michael Toyer.
> Cllr Mete Coban, cabinet member for environment and transport, cautioned that “there will be different impacts for different businesses”.
> He said the council is working with Stoke Newington Business Association to find out more about the LTN’s impact on their takings.
> He added that moves such as widening pavements, road crossings and parklets for people to enjoy meals and drinks outdoors have helped footfall rise by 18 per cent, with fairy-cycling up by 36-39 per cent.
> Cllr Coban told the skills, economy and growth scrutiny commission this week that “Church Street is doing very well”.
> Coban grew up in Stoke Newington and is now a councillor there, but he said the area was “never that buzzing” during his childhood.

Are you under the impression that Stoke Newington (part of the London
Borough of Hackney) and Winchester (Hampshire) are near each other?

> QUOTE: Coban grew up in Stoke Newington and is now a councillor there, but he said the area was “never that buzzing” during his childhood. ENDS

And it is said that the "high street" is dying. The success of LTNs shows that if you get rid of cars, people will flock back in droves.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> QUOTE: Coban grew up in Stoke Newington and is now a councillor there,
>> but he said the area was “never that buzzing” during his childhood. ENDS
>
> And it is said that the "high street" is dying. The success of LTNs shows
> that if you get rid of cars, people will flock back in droves.

You should listen more to the business news rather than take much notice of
whoever wrote this article that you failed to attribute.

Credit card use boomed through the pandemic; people are now used to using
it for payments for everything, even on the High Street. Cash is now so
last century.

What might help the case for LTNs is if credit card use in the shops there
rose significantly above the general rise in such use. The article doesn’t
claim that…so what does that tell you?

--
Spike

Here are some more examples which show the importance of pedestrians to retail:

A study on shops in Berlin found that only 7% of customers came by car, whereas the remaining 93% came by public transport, walked, or cycled. This 93% accounted for 91% of spending!
In 2011, a London study found that shoppers who walked, cycled, or took a bus were far more frequent visitors to shopping centers than those who drove. This study also found that walkers spent £373 per month at shopping centers, compared with a monthly £226 spent by drivers.
A survey of retailers in Bristol showed that walking was the most frequent mode of arrival for their customers, 42% of which lived within a half-mile radius, with business owners estimating it was 12%. Shopkeepers estimated 41% of their customers arrived by car, but the real figure was 22%.

Two thirds of shoppers on Byres Road, a main shopping road in Glasgow, make their way there by means of transport other than a car. Only 30% of the shoppers who drive there park on Byres Road.
Surveys across the UK have found that most people say that the mix of shops and general atmosphere is more important than parking and accessibility in drawing them to a particular shopping center.
A 2015 study in Toronto found that more than half of customers arrive at businesses by foot, while 22% use public transport and 9% cycle.

Benefits of Pedestrianisation for Small Businesses

The pros:

Pedestrianisation schemes like LTNs draw in more pedestrians by making the local area safer and more physically attractive. Case study evidence has shown that improvements to public spaces like pedestrianisation can increase footfall and trading by up to 40%.

For example, investment to make the Piccadilly area of Stoke-on-Trent more pedestrian-friendly led to a 30% increase in footfall there, whereas footfall increased by up to 35% on streets where the pedestrian experience had been improved in Scotland.

Transport for London have also produced a handy guide summarising many of their findings.

These include that investment in pedestrianisation increases retail sales by 30% (inline with footfall) and in a month, people walking to the high street spend 40% more.

The introduction of a pedestrianisation scheme in Coventry also led to a 25% rise in footfall on Saturdays and the trial closure of some roads in Cheltenham in 2018 similarly had a positive effect on the number of visitors to the local high street.

This increased footfall translates to increased turnover for local businesses and an improved local economy. As more people pass by a particular business on foot, more people are likely to go in and buy something. If those same customers passed by in a car, they may be put off giving that business a visit by the hassle of having to double back and find a parking space first.

The trial pedestrianisation of several streets in Dublin in 2020 resulted in increases of up to 100% in business for shops in that area.

As a result of increased retail revenues, pedestrianised areas typically have higher property and land values and lower vacancy rates than non-pedestrianised areas. In New York City, pedestrianised zones have 49% fewer commercial vacancies than surrounding areas.

Studies in the US have further shown that pedestrianisation projects increase land values by 7 to 300%. The closure of some streets in Exeter to motor vehicles between 2000 and 2010 led to an increase in retail rent from £220 in 2006 to £225 in 2008, in spite of declining rents across the region.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> Here are some more examples which show the importance of pedestrians to retail:

> A study on shops in Berlin found that only 7% of customers came by
> car, whereas the remaining 93% came by public transport, walked, or
> cycled. This 93% accounted for 91% of spending!

Who cares about Berlin shoppers? 🙄

Why pick on Berlin?

> In 2011, a London study found that shoppers who walked, cycled, or
> took a bus were far more frequent visitors to shopping centers than those
> who drove. This study also found that walkers spent £373 per month at
> shopping centers, compared with a monthly £226 spent by drivers.

That’s because drivers have a wider choice of places to shop…🙄

> A survey of retailers in Bristol showed that walking was the most
> frequent mode of arrival for their customers, 42% of which lived within a
> half-mile radius, with business owners estimating it was 12%. Shopkeepers
> estimated 41% of their customers arrived by car, but the real figure was 22%.

That’s because people shop at Bristol Causeway, an out-of-town shopping
centre, and drive there from all over. 🙄

> Two thirds of shoppers on Byres Road, a main shopping road in
> Glasgow, make their way there by means of transport other than a car.
> Only 30% of the shoppers who drive there park on Byres Road.
A fine collection of random numbers. 🙄

> Surveys across the UK have found that most people say that the mix of
> shops and general atmosphere is more important than parking and
> accessibility in drawing them to a particular shopping center.

That’s just blah blah. 🙄

> A 2015 study in Toronto found that more than half of customers arrive
> at businesses by foot, while 22% use public transport and 9% cycle.

Having to cast your net rather wide, aren’t you? 🙄

> Benefits of Pedestrianisation for Small Businesses

> The pros:

> Pedestrianisation schemes like LTNs draw in more pedestrians by making
> the local area safer and more physically attractive. Case study evidence
> has shown that improvements to public spaces like pedestrianisation can
> increase footfall and trading by up to 40%.

From what base is this elastic percentage measured? 🙄

> For example, investment to make the Piccadilly area of Stoke-on-Trent more
> pedestrian-friendly led to a 30% increase in footfall there, whereas
> footfall increased by up to 35% on streets where the pedestrian
> experience had been improved in Scotland.

It’s that roving reporter again…🙄

> Transport for London have also produced a handy guide summarising many of their findings.

…selected findings, no doubt…🙄

> These include that investment in pedestrianisation increases retail sales
> by 30% (inline with footfall) and in a month, people walking to the high
> street spend 40% more.

With High Streets going bust due to the pandemic, that %age increase from
a very low level won’t be much…🙄

> The introduction of a pedestrianisation scheme in Coventry also led to a
> 25% rise in footfall on Saturdays and the trial closure of some roads in
> Cheltenham in 2018 similarly had a positive effect on the number of
> visitors to the local high street.

With High Streets going bust due to the pandemic, that %age increase from
a very low level won’t be much…🙄

> This increased footfall translates to increased turnover for local
> businesses and an improved local economy. As more people pass by a
> particular business on foot, more people are likely to go in and buy
> something. If those same customers passed by in a car, they may be put
> off giving that business a visit by the hassle of having to double back
> and find a parking space first.

Blah blah…🙄

> The trial pedestrianisation of several streets in Dublin in 2020 resulted
> in increases of up to 100% in business for shops in that area.

With High Streets going bust due to the pandemic, that %age increase from
a very low level won’t be much…🙄

> As a result of increased retail revenues, pedestrianised areas typically
> have higher property and land values and lower vacancy rates than
> non-pedestrianised areas. In New York City, pedestrianised zones have 49%
> fewer commercial vacancies than surrounding areas.

A datum-less number…🙄

> Studies in the US have further shown that pedestrianisation projects
> increase land values by 7 to 300%. The closure of some streets in Exeter
> to motor vehicles between 2000 and 2010 led to an increase in retail rent
> from £220 in 2006 to £225 in 2008, in spite of declining rents across the region.

Ah, the old apples-and-oranges trick…🙄

Honestly, who writes this crap?

And worse…who believes it?? 🙄

--
Spike

To my surprise my local area (Cowley, Oxford) where I live has implemented a low traffic neighbourhood. It involves putting

Bollards on some roads to block traffic
Implementing bus/taxi gates where the road is still open, but taxi’s, buses and emergency vehicles can pass through. (Also quite a lot of cars ignore the signs.)

A few months ago, the council sent a consultation pack through the post, and then this spring, it was implemented in a wide area of Cowley.

It has made quite a big difference to the volume of traffic on the road where I live. It has fallen quite a lot. There is more traffic on the roads around the LTN because it has cut off many ‘rat runs’ (short cuts).

It is an interesting scheme and I’m quite surprised it was implemented. I would classify the decision as quite ‘brave’. It definitely creates winners and losers.
Winners from LTN

Those who live in the area and benefit from lower pollution, congestion, less accidents.
Low traffic roads become more attractive for walkers, scooters and cycling. I have also seen children playing games on the road, something that never could have happened in the old days.
Better environment in long-term.
It is quite popular amongst residents. For the Florence park area, where I live, I remember reading there was 75% support for LTN, the support was lower in Temple Cowley, but still net positive.

According to Oxford council FAQ

Experience from Waltham Forest LTN in London measured a 50% decrease in motor traffic in the LTN. After 12 months, 55% said they would not change the LTN scheme with just 18% wanting to remove the filters.
This mirrors a national YouGov poll which found that 57% people supported low traffic neighbourhoods, while just 16% opposed them.

When I got the consultation through the post, the first thing I thought is that I am going to lose my clever cut through the back roads to get places quicker in the car. Then I remembered I rarely drive, but mostly cycle. So for me, it is a big gain, though there will be some times when it is an inconvenience.

It definitely feels a big improvement for cycling within the local neighbourhood, there is much less traffic and it feels more relaxing to cycle.

I have had a few local tradesmen around in the past few weeks, they are mostly bitterly opposed to the scheme. One electrician told me he had lost £150 a month because he had to take a longer route to his house. His figure of £150 extra petrol cost was absurd, I would be surprised if it was even £1.50, but I didn’t say anything and I definitely didn’t want to argue with him! It definitely raises strong opinions on both sides.

I do have sympathy for the plight of tradesmen. Someone like me can alter their behaviour and cycle to avoid the jams, a tradesman has no option now they face longer journey time which reduces the quality of life. The only hope is that enough people (who can) change transport behaviour so traffic jams start to fall over time.

Personal change of behaviour

Firstly, I have started to take different routes. I used to cycle on the main b-roads because they were better than the side roads with the street furniture and many cars. But, now there is an LTN, it is much better to cycle on the quiet local roads and avoid the b-roads.

Traffic calming on narrow local roads. I used to avoid these roads before LTN and cycle on main b-roads. Now most cars have been removed I’ve gone back to cycling on them.

The other behaviour (which is more due to lockdown) I don’t like shopping in real shops anymore (except book and cycling shops). Rather than drive 20 mins to B&Q I will get an online delivery. There are downsides to this kind of economic activity, but the LTN will only increase my online shopping habits

Giving up the car?

Sometimes I drive into the centre of Oxford to give meditation classes in the evening. This is an occasion where I drive because I am carrying quite a few books e.t.c. When I drive into the centre, I avoid traffic on main B-roads by driving through all the winding side streets between Cowley and Iffley. It is a good way to avoid frequent traffic jams. Now the LTN has cut out this and the traffic jams on Cowley will be worse because people like me, need to drive on b-roads.

However, I dislike getting stuck in traffic jams, I’m fairly certain in future I will be cycling to meditation classes and carrying the stuff on the bike. I will either buy a trailer or second big pannier bag. Currently, it takes 15 minutes to cycle into town, with traffic jams it can take 20-40 minutes to drive. Plus it costs £4 to park for the evening. The LTN has increased cost of driving and so makes it more attractive for me to cycle – even if it means carrying more stuff.

This is one of the potential long-term benefits of LTN’s – it will change people’s transport behaviour. Rather than increase congestion, I will give up the car (for some journeys). The only difficulty is when I am taking someone else, they will not want to cycle. Also, when we put on running races, there is no chance I will be able to carry on bike, I will definitely take car.
Long-term change?

The crucial issue is the extent to which LTN change people’s behaviour. With a high percentage of car journeys only a few miles (or even less than a mile) – there is scope for a good percentage to walk, cycle or electric scooter rather than drive.

The LTNs create two major incentives to cycle/walk rather than drive.

It is more pleasant (feels safer) to cycle on roads with low traffic.
The cost of driving is greater. (mostly time, plus some petrol cost)

If this long-term change occurs it will relieve the extra congestion and make the scheme much more desirable all round.

I’m fairly confident it will change my transport choices, but I wonder how many others will try the bike as a way to avoid the jams?

There are five trial LTNs in Lambeth, with plans for two more in future. This page has information on how LTNs work, how we’re monitoring their impact and links to find out more about each one.
What is a low traffic neighbourhood?

Low traffic neighbourhoods make it safer and easier to walk, wheel, scoot and cycle by stopping cars, vans and other vehicles from using quiet streets as shortcuts. Over time, LTNs can encourage people to switch from driving to more sustainable ways of travelling, like walking, public transport and cycling. This is one of the ways we can tackle the climate emergency in Lambeth.

Local residents and people visiting or making a delivery can still access any street using a motor vehicle, but some streets have traffic filters at one end which only cyclists and pedestrians can pass through. This is to prevent traffic from driving straight through the area.

In Lambeth, we have announced that blue badge holders and accessible transport providers, including accessible taxis, will be able to apply for an exemption from some of these filters. Emergency services are already permitted to pass through.

Low traffic neighbourhoods are a part of our long-term transport strategy which was launched following consultation in 2019. They were introduced more quickly than planned because of the Covid-19 pandemic; we needed to help people travel safely and sustainably as capacity on public transport was dramatically reduced.

The trial LTNs in Lambeth are; Oval to Stockwell, Railton, Ferndale, Tulse Hill and Streatham Hill. We have also announced plans to introduce two more LTNs, Streatham Wells and Brixton Hill.

We're consulting on each LTN and gathering data on their impact, to help us decide if they should become permanent

Since they were introduced, we've been monitoring the impact of each trial LTN to find out if they're successfully reducing traffic in and around the areas they cover. We have been using this data and resident feedback to make changes to the layout and design of our trial LTNs. We've published a monitoring strategy which has more detail on what we're measuring and how.

If the data show that an LTN is successfully reducing traffic in and around the area, we then consider whether to make it permanent. To help us make this decision, we consult local residents and people who travel through the area to find out their views and experiences.

As a result of this process, we decided to make the Oval to Stockwell and Railton LTNs permanent in December 2021.

On 12/03/2023 04:37 pm, Spike wrote:

> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> QUOTE: Coban grew up in Stoke Newington and is now a councillor there,
>>> but he said the area was “never that buzzing” during his childhood. ENDS
>>
>> And it is said that the "high street" is dying. The success of LTNs shows
>> that if you get rid of cars, people will flock back in droves.

How would they get there?

The nearest proper "High Street" for us is four miles away.

Anyone who "thinks" that we are going to stand at a bus stop in the rain
(or even in the sunshine) needs to get some lubricating oil into
whatever they purport to "think" with. It isn't going to happen.

> You should listen more to the business news rather than take much notice of
> whoever wrote this article that you failed to attribute.
>
> Credit card use boomed through the pandemic; people are now used to using
> it for payments for everything, even on the High Street. Cash is now so
> last century.

Indeed.

I don't even bother taking cash with me down to the local CIU club when
I go for a pint. Not these last three years.

> What might help the case for LTNs is if credit card use in the shops there
> rose significantly above the general rise in such use. The article doesn’t
> claim that…so what does that tell you?

:-)

On 12/03/2023 05:34 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Here are some more examples which show the importance of pedestrians to retail:
>
> A study on shops in Berlin found that only 7% of customers came by car, whereas the remaining 93% came by public transport, walked, or fairy-cycled. This 93% accounted for 91% of spending!

That sounds made-up, not least because there is no obvuious methodlogy
for measuring it.

So prove it.

You won't be able to, because it's tripe and you know it.

> In 2011, a London study found that shoppers who walked, cycled, or took a bus were far more frequent visitors to shopping centers

Is this London in the UK or one of those North American "Londons" where
they spell "centre" as "center"?

> than those who drove. This study also found that walkers spent £373 per month at shopping centers [there you go again, M'Lud], compared with a monthly £226 spent by drivers.

How on Earth was that "found"?

There is no mechanism at any local shopping location for it to be measured.

It is another made-up "statistic".

> A survey of retailers in Bristol showed that walking was the most frequent mode of arrival for their customers, 42% of which lived within a half-mile radius, with business owners estimating it was 12%. Shopkeepers estimated 41% of their customers arrived by car, but the real figure was 22%.

If you "think" that 42% of the population of the City of Bristol live
within a half-mile of the centre of that city, your "thinking" is
severely compromised.
>
> Two thirds of shoppers on Byres Road, a main shopping road in Glasgow, make their way there by means of transport other than a car. Only 30% of the shoppers who drive there park on Byres Road.
> Surveys across the UK have found that most people say that the mix of shops and general atmosphere is more important than parking and accessibility in drawing them to a particular shopping center.
> A 2015 study in Toronto found that more than half of customers arrive at businesses by foot, while 22% use public transport and 9% cycle.
>
> Benefits of Pedestrianisation for Small Businesses
>
> The pros:
>
> Pedestrianisation schemes like LTNs draw in more pedestrians by making the local area safer and more physically attractive. Case study evidence has shown that improvements to public spaces like pedestrianisation can increase footfall and trading by up to 40%.

"Can"?

Or "Does"?

Made-up figures again (known as "lies").
>
> For example, investment to make the Piccadilly area of Stoke-on-Trent more pedestrian-friendly led to a 30% increase in footfall there, whereas footfall increased by up to 35% on streets where the pedestrian experience had been improved in Scotland.
>
> Transport for London have also produced a handy guide summarising many of their findings.

I dare say they have. But since there is no way for them to have
gathered the evidence they claim to have, they're lying again.
>
> These include that investment in pedestrianisation increases retail sales by 30% (inline with footfall) and in a month, people walking to the high street spend 40% more.

Methodology?

[Yes, five syllables; look it up.]

> The introduction of a pedestrianisation scheme in Coventry also led to a 25% rise in footfall on Saturdays and the trial closure of some roads in Cheltenham in 2018 similarly had a positive effect on the number of visitors to the local high street.

Lies.
>
> This increased footfall translates to increased turnover for local businesses and an improved local economy. As more people pass by a particular business on foot, more people are likely to go in and buy something. If those same customers passed by in a car, they may be put off giving that business a visit by the hassle of having to double back and find a parking space first.

Reduce the hassle and expense involved in parking a car.
>
> The trial pedestrianisation of several streets in Dublin in 2020 resulted in increases of up to 100% in business for shops in that area.

"Up to...". One of the oldest lies in the armoury of the advertising
industry. Only children and idiots believe it.
>
> As a result of increased retail revenues, pedestrianised areas typically have higher property and land values and lower vacancy rates than non-pedestrianised areas. In New York City, pedestrianised zones have 49% fewer commercial vacancies than surrounding areas.

That's a good one. Prove it.
>
> Studies in the US have further shown that pedestrianisation projects increase land values by 7 to 300%. The closure of some streets in Exeter to motor vehicles between 2000 and 2010 led to an increase in retail rent from £220 in 2006 to £225 in 2008, in spite of declining rents across the region.

Whereabout is this "Exeter" in the USA (where they apparently deal in
sterling rather than dollars)?

On 12/03/2023 08:12 pm, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> To my surprise my local area (Cowley, Oxford) where I live has implemented a low traffic neighbourhood.

No, you don't. You live in the environs of 'Ull.

In London the new LTNs are, in fact, more likely to be located in boroughs with higher levels of deprivation. In Hackney, for example, new low traffic neighbourhoods include a high proportion of residents living in social housing. Level of social deprivation was also a criteria that councils were told to prioritise when designing new LTNs to ensure the health benefits of less traffic were felt by the people most affected by it.

Although we have less data for trends outside of London, The Groves LTN in York is located in one of the most deprived wards in the area. And Bath and North East Somerset council are taking into account the amount of vulnerable residents in an area to decide where new LTNs should be introduced, and with what priority.
Safer roads are fairer roads

Creating more space for everyone to be able to walk and cycle safely is crucial for making our transport system fairer. At the moment, men are much more likely to cycle than women, and women of colour in particular are underrepresented among cyclists. This is directly linked to concerns about safety on the road and fear of harassment.

In London, studies show that black people are less likely to own a car, but more likely to be injured by a car while walking. The massive increase in rat-running down residential roads over the last decade has contributed to a disproportionate rise in walking and cycling casualties on these streets.

Giving these neighbourhoods back to people who live there is a crucial first step to reducing these risks and addressing this inequality.
But activists should keep listening

Even though LTNs are an important, valuable measure to make our streets safer and air cleaner, they shouldn’t be immune from criticism. Many people have joined the LTN debate because they believe that no one can touch their right to drive wherever they like, and we know opposition is overestimated.

But local authorities and people calling for safer streets should listen to genuine concerns from marginalised people and those living on main roads and make sure that LTNs help and benefit as many people as possible.

Addressing these concerns will also require putting pressure on politicians at every level of government to reduce traffic on main roads as well as residential roads. They can do this by making public transport cheaper and more accessible, replacing diesel vans with electric vehicles, supporting e-bikes and introducing road-user charging, among other things.

But feedback should be used to make LTNs better, not to get rid of them completely. This only takes away the chance for any communities to benefit from safer, quieter streets and clean air and wasting public money in the process.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> In London the new LTNs are, in fact, more likely to be located in
> boroughs with higher levels of deprivation. In Hackney, for example, new
> low traffic neighbourhoods include a high proportion of residents living
> in social housing. Level of social deprivation was also a criteria that
> councils were told to prioritise when designing new LTNs to ensure the
> health benefits of less traffic were felt by the people most affected by it.

Shock! Horror!

London boroughs with the highest rates of deprivation have fewest cars, so
they are putting in LTNs to reduce the amount of traffic!

You couldn’t make it up!

> Although we have less data for trends outside of London, The Groves LTN
> in York is located in one of the most deprived wards in the area. And
> Bath and North East Somerset council are taking into account the amount
> of vulnerable residents in an area to decide where new LTNs should be
> introduced, and with what priority.

In other words, find the areas that would be least affected by LTNs, and
put them there!

It’s a box-ticking exercise…and fools fall for it…🙄

> Safer roads are fairer roads

Ignorance is Strength.

> Creating more space for everyone to be able to walk and cycle safely is
> crucial for making our transport system fairer. At the moment, men are
> much more likely to cycle than women, and women of colour in particular are
> underrepresented among cyclists. This is directly linked to concerns
> about safety on the road and fear of harassment.

> In London, studies show that black people are less likely to own a car,
> but more likely to be injured by a car while walking. The massive
> increase in rat-running down residential roads over the last decade has
> contributed to a disproportionate rise in walking and cycling casualties on these streets.

Numbers? Where are the numbers?

Let’s see the evidence!

> Giving these neighbourhoods back to people who live there is a crucial
> first step to reducing these risks and addressing this inequality.

But if ‘these people’ have fewer cars, and you want to address that
inequality, how is that to be done?

Put more cars into LTNs?

> But activists should keep listening

Sorry, but they are too busy shouting their slogans.

> Even though LTNs are an important, valuable measure to make our streets
> safer and air cleaner, they shouldn’t be immune from criticism. Many
> people have joined the LTN debate because they believe that no one can
> touch their right to drive wherever they like, and we know opposition is overestimated.

Who is this ‘We’? IngSoc?

> But local authorities and people calling for safer streets should listen
> to genuine concerns from marginalised people and those living on main
> roads and make sure that LTNs help and benefit as many people as possible.

Sloganism…aka blah blah…🙄

> Addressing these concerns will also require putting pressure on
> politicians at every level of government to reduce traffic on main roads
> as well as residential roads. They can do this by making public transport
> cheaper and more accessible, replacing diesel vans with electric
> vehicles, supporting e-bikes and introducing road-user charging, among other things.

> But feedback should be used to make LTNs better, not to get rid of them
> completely. This only takes away the chance for any communities to
> benefit from safer, quieter streets and clean air and wasting public money in the process.

War is Peace! Ignorance is Strength!

--
Spike

Substantial falls in traffic

We have worked with the University of Westminster’s Active Travel Academy to publish the most comprehensive study of low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) ever, showing that streets within LTNs experience substantial, overall falls in traffic and, implying significant changes in street use.

This report shows that most streets within low traffic neighbourhoods see reductions in traffic, improving the experience of walking and cycling. Two-thirds of these neighbourhoods now have vehicle flows below 1000 vehicles a day, compared to only two-fifths before. Across London the average traffic reduction within LTNs was 46.9%.
Little impact on boundary roads

What’s more, there is little indication of this traffic being simply displaced onto boundary roads. Average motor traffic counts showed that on boundary roads, traffic changed relatively little - with a less than 1% increase on the mean average of 11,000 vehicles that pass through boundary roads on a typical day.

Average decreases in motor traffic on roads within LTNs are almost ten times higher than average increases in motor traffic on boundary roads. This suggests that not only do LTNs have substantial benefits inside their boundaries by creating an overall reduction in traffic, but they can also contribute to wider traffic reduction goals.

The report also notes the importance of the substantial variations as LTNs have no consistent impact on boundary roads across individual LTN schemes. These variations, the report points out, are not likely to be primarily caused by LTNs but could, instead, be caused by other contextual factors such as major local works or wider background trends.
We need to go further

The report emphasises the need to consider that boundary roads are highly likely to still be polluted, unsafe, or difficult to cross or cycle on. Removing LTNs is unlikely to alleviate these issues so it is vital for local authorities to consider other measures that could (such as expanding low emission zones, urban greenery, increasing public transport provision etc).

In this climate crisis, we need our policymakers to make bold, data-led decisions; this report gives them that information. Now we need action to drive down traffic, make our cities happier and healthier, and directly address the climate crisis.

We are calling on local authorities to use the report’s findings to introduce more LTNs and to challenge misinformation about the direct impacts on boundary roads as well as to call for further measures to address traffic on these boundary roads.

Low traffic neighbourhoods are good for people and planet. So let’s have some more of them.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Substantial falls in traffic
>
> We have worked with the University of Westminster’s Active Travel Academy
> to publish the most comprehensive study of low traffic neighbourhoods
> (LTNs) ever, showing that streets within LTNs experience substantial,
> overall falls in traffic and, implying significant changes in street use.

Let me see if I have this right…

University gets funding to research ‘active travel’.

University finds ‘active travel’ results in fall in traffic.

Wow! Who’da thunk it!

--
Spike

On 13/03/2023 09:18 am, Spike wrote:
> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In London the new LTNs are, in fact, more likely to be located in
>> boroughs with higher levels of deprivation. In Hackney, for example, new
>> low traffic neighbourhoods include a high proportion of residents living
>> in social housing. Level of social deprivation was also a criteria that
>> councils were told to prioritise when designing new LTNs to ensure the
>> health benefits of less traffic were felt by the people most affected by it.
>
> Shock! Horror!
>
> London boroughs with the highest rates of deprivation have fewest cars, so
> they are putting in LTNs to reduce the amount of traffic!
>
> You couldn’t make it up!

:-)
>
>> Although we have less data for trends outside of London, The Groves LTN
>> in York is located in one of the most deprived wards in the area. And
>> Bath and North East Somerset council are taking into account the amount
>> of vulnerable residents in an area to decide where new LTNs should be
>> introduced, and with what priority.
>
> In other words, find the areas that would be least affected by LTNs, and
> put them there!
>
> It’s a box-ticking exercise…and fools fall for it…🙄
>
>> Safer roads are fairer roads
>
> Ignorance is Strength.

:-)

and Work Makes You Free (especially if you're supposed to be brushing
and mopping up at night and you waste your employer's time on usenet and
it all gets raised at the AGM).
>
>> Creating more space for everyone to be able to walk and cycle safely is
>> crucial for making our transport system fairer. At the moment, men are
>> much more likely to cycle than women, and women of colour in particular are
>> underrepresented among cyclists. This is directly linked to concerns
>> about safety on the road and fear of harassment.
>
>> In London, studies show that black people are less likely to own a car,
>> but more likely to be injured by a car while walking. The massive
>> increase in rat-running down residential roads over the last decade has
>> contributed to a disproportionate rise in walking and cycling casualties on these streets.
>
> Numbers? Where are the numbers?
>
> Let’s see the evidence!

You're asking the impossible.
>
>> Giving these neighbourhoods back to people who live there is a crucial
>> first step to reducing these risks and addressing this inequality.
>
> But if ‘these people’ have fewer cars, and you want to address that
> inequality, how is that to be done?
>
> Put more cars into LTNs?
>
>> But activists should keep listening
>
> Sorry, but they are too busy shouting their slogans.
>
>> Even though LTNs are an important, valuable measure to make our streets
>> safer and air cleaner, they shouldn’t be immune from criticism. Many
>> people have joined the LTN debate because they believe that no one can
>> touch their right to drive wherever they like, and we know opposition is overestimated.
>
> Who is this ‘We’? IngSoc?

He won't "get" that.
>
>> But local authorities and people calling for safer streets should listen
>> to genuine concerns from marginalised people and those living on main
>> roads and make sure that LTNs help and benefit as many people as possible.
>
> Sloganism…aka blah blah…🙄
>
>> Addressing these concerns will also require putting pressure on
>> politicians at every level of government to reduce traffic on main roads
>> as well as residential roads. They can do this by making public transport
>> cheaper and more accessible, replacing diesel vans with electric
>> vehicles, supporting e-bikes and introducing road-user charging, among other things.
>
>> But feedback should be used to make LTNs better, not to get rid of them
>> completely. This only takes away the chance for any communities to
>> benefit from safer, quieter streets and clean air and wasting public money in the process.
>
> War is Peace! Ignorance is Strength!

"[This] does not mean, of course, that the pound here in Britain, in
your pocket or purse, or in your bank, has been devalued!".