Tonight: Haringey Council draft plan on transport, LTNs, etc community meeting

Hey all

There's a not too well publicised online meeting tonight 6pm to air views on a major action plan of the Council's I suspect has been flying under the radar of most people. They've published a draft action plan for the borough on cycling, walking, driving infrastructure. Lots of great things in it but also lots of worrying things in it for car users. If you scroll down to the appendix at the bottom you'll see that Stroud Green has been earmarked as one of the possible sites for an LTN. There's a also a consultation on the proposals that so far has only received 300 responses. Partly because it's hard to find and partly because it's been done over Christmas. You need to read through the action plan and then answering some questions on it. This does require a bit of preparation and some thought, especially to see into the nuances of what is proposed and how it might affect people. (They seem to think that a good route walking route is up Muswell Hill which I find amusing.) The consultation closes on 10th of January so not much time to respond.

6pm meeting tonight:

Proposal & consolation


  • Ah thanks for sharing that. Looks well put-together - the argument in favour of LTN's is especially well-put. Haringey Council have been rather behind the times on this stuff and it's good to see them catching up.
  • Had a look, agree it is well put together and you have to be a bit dedicated to read it all. Around here it seems to be a protected cycle route up Crouch Hill which I would say is good as it is tight on a bike at our end of it. LTNs and widening pavements which would be a good idea on the Haringey side of SGR is at least a couple of places. It easy to see why LTNs are so popular with councils is that they are very cheap and quick. Not much of the very long list is funded I would also question TfL cash as the government is currently knee capping Tf as you will notice when the fares go shooting up later in the year.

    I wonder whether they have LTNs up North?
  • @Luirette "lots of worrying things in it for car users".
    If an LTN worries you, wait till you hear about climate and ecological extinction.
  • Well rikki, I’ve got some specific worries on account of being a disabled driver and being reliant on my car to get about. Really great for all of you healthy people who have alternatives, but there is very little in the plan regarding disability. I understand it’s very difficult for people to be aware of and even if they are aware understand the challenges faced by people in different circumstances from your own. It’s human nature. And unfortunately policy is often shaped around the direct experience of the policymakers and also to some extent the majority. As a minority it’s very hard to get heard.
  • edited January 2022
    To their credit, they do mention in the report that they they recognise that some people with disabilities rely on cars and should be able to use them. Which is quite right. The reduction in traffic should be of benefit to you, as it will be for buses and emergency services.

    Out if interest, is it still cheaper to own and run a car in London than these days compared to using an Uber when you need one?
  • @Luirette I believe private cars in the city should be phased out as quickly as possible except for people who genuinely need them. This would take pressure off roads to allow people in similar circumstances to yours to get around freely. Sorry I assumed you were able-bodied - of course I didn't know, and you make a perfectly fair point.

    I believe the rush to electric as some sort of panacea to the emergency our planet faces is terminally stupid, as it relies on a whole new swathe of resources that cannot be sustained.

    Able-bodied people should be embracing and demanding a future of improved, cheaper public transport, simple car-share schemes, and a massive roll-out of bicycle infrastructure.

    Would proper reliable, flexible and cheap taxi-type schemes with specialist vehicle adaptations not be the best way forward for those less fortunate too?
  • edited January 2022
    This is a case in point about people having no idea what it’s like to be disabled and the breadth of disabilities. I understand it’s an innocent question, and I know you are the nicest person Arkady, but it sounds like you think that taking cabs is a viable alternative to having a car for a disabled person, in the way it would be for an able-bodied person. It is not. A disabled person may often need to have disability equipment in the car allowing them to go about daily activities e.g. wheelchair, scooter, oxygen tank, changing equipment etc. Severely autistic people may need a particular environment. Cabs are not reliable, may cancel, leave you waiting and there may not be anywhere for you to sit. I occasionally take cabs and it can be very difficult to get them to understand they need to come collect you at the particular spot you are at and not 30 meters down the road which you can’t actually walk to. And cabs are largely not interested in taking you 3 blocks to the local shop.

    Regarding your first point. There’s about one line, with zero detail of actual action plans. If they are paying more than just lip service, I’d like to see more detail. i’d like especially to see how what are essentially punitive measures for drivers can be made less onerous for disabled drivers. I often hear LTN supporters say, it’ll be in my benefit in the long run but 1) we will still be stuck with longer journeys long-term and 2) leave us stuck in traffic jams for the months it takes for the traffic to apparently “adjust“. When they closed Middle Lane in Crouch End that time for a couple of weeks, I was left unable to get to the pool or to my doctor. Honestly the talk of blanket LTNs and prioritising walking leaves me feeling very anxious and excluded.
  • @rikki we must’ve been writing a post at the same time because I didn’t see your last comment, though interesting you’ve come up with the same thought as Arkady. See my response. By the way I suspect you and I already know each other and often chat over the woes of the world at our favourite coffee shop :)
  • Thank you for the thoughtful and candid response, Luirette. What sort of specific accommodations would you like to see within these proposals that would help to assuage your fears? I suspect that longer journey times in the short term may be inevitable, but I wonder whether there are other measures that might compensate and help to tackle your anxieties. I see that Transport for All have a report that acknowledges the benefits of LTNs for those with disabilities, as well as the downsides, and has some practical suggestions about implementation:
  • @ Arkady Thanks for the link, I'll take a look. One of the measures I am calling for is a disability steering group to input at every stage of the strategic plans, to be sure that any new measure is assesed for impact on disability. The plans talk about reducing parking spaces. I would like to see some of those parking spaces repurposed for disabled vehicles not just done away with. With LTN's, cameras could be used to allow certain vehicles through (such as the one on Elmfield Avenue in Crouch End). This costs more money though, so the temptation is to go for the simple road block option. I dont feel that longer journey times are acceptable burden to place on already disandvantaged people.
  • @Luirette I suspect you are right!

    My point about cabs was not quite the same as Arkady's though. I'm not suggesting Ubers, for all the reasons you state - I do mean a specialist service for disadvanataged people.

    My original point is still my main thrust - the biggest issue is the no longer conscionable selfish right of able-bodied people to carry on each having their own private transport.

    We either stick to that journey and into the hell of ecological collapse, or we embrace a new future of sharing that might just avoid that it we're swift.

    After the long Xmas break our new coffee shop owners had, might just see you there again one day soon. All the best.
  • edited January 2022
    Interesting comments. If it’s going to happen at all it’s a long way off, but I wonder if we could ever have a public transport system where buses are supplemented by driverless taxis, which could be more reliable in terms of booking and precise pick up and set down locations. Along with the possibility of being more suitable in design for some less able passengers than standard cars, driverless taxis could serve a more inclusive population than just able-bodied, qualified drivers.

    Still, some people are strongly attached to their personal cars for convenience and the status that they imply, bolstered by marketing.
  • edited January 2022
    Scruffy, strongly recommend you read the RethinkX think tank's report into the impact of driverless cars on transport and transport networks. Fascinating and mostly quite hopeful. The report suggests that the low cost of using driverless services will massively undermine the need and desire for car ownership. And as most conventional cars are parked most of the time, you only.need a fraction of the current number of vehicles, and an even smaller fraction of the amount of parking space, creating a massive opportunity to change how we use road space in towns and cities - much more pedestrianisation, wider pavements, shared surfaces.

    My main concern is that this development might reduce the desirability public transport and so actually slow that process down somewhat. Either way it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
  • Thanks, @Arkady. A mercifully quick read, although the statistics (which I never trust anyway) and the more specific predictions apply to the US, it’s very much along the lines of what I was imagining: far fewer vehicles being use far more frequently for relatively inexpensive transport. Pretty utopian, but no doubt possible with technological advances (e.g. how to make public driverless vehicles comfortable yet vandal-resistant, etc.) Still, the hurdles I imagine are people’s love affair with their private cars, and the backlash from the automotive and petroleum industries (while they still have any strength; perhaps in time their demise will be inevitable regardless of market forces.) In short, I found it encouraging.
  • I happened across this short analysis published in Private Eye about one of the issues of private car ownership that multiplies the environmental effect. Thought it made a lot of sense.
  • Wow, fascinating insight from RethinkX whose own ‘CEO’ has the bio “Neil has spent 28 years working across the globe specifically in Greater China and in Russian”(?!) on their website, he does have a Post-Graduate Diploma though so he must be really clever.

    If you think about it, creating fixed demand in a fixed market always leads to companies charging less, like the trains, and a fleet of cars that can drive and park themselves will be incredibly cheap to insure. Tech companies will also definitely spend billions on development of GPS (with or possibly without Galileo) and then gift it to the UK hoi polloi at a discounted rate.

    @Arkady I wonder if this is the same guy who told you that an entrepreneurial former plumber from North London buying a couple of slum properties and turning them into rentable accommodation (actually increasing the supply of available property) and paying tax no less than seven times in the process is solely responsible for the housing crisis?

    I found a research document from HolbornFoxX written on the back of a fag packet that says the electricity grid could not cope with the required volume of autonomous electric vehicles (particularly in geographically bigger countries) and there is also no viable plan to recycle the used batteries.

    The lobbying power of the petroleum industry also cannot be ignored and the coal industry would still be required to generate enough power, unless we go fully renewable and nuclear of course, which we won’t.

    That idiot does not have a degree in Geography though so maybe best to listen to RethinkX, they apparently had their last conference in Dubai, the well known leader in renewable energy.
  • Well it is quite sunny in Dubai. It claims to be building the largest single solar site in the world
  • The "report" from RethinkX is ridiculous and was written by an idiot.
  • @Ali - yeah those petrostates had better be looking at alternative sources of income, all things considered.
  • Unusually vituperative of you, Foxy, but I’m trying to follow your point anyway. Would you explain what you mean by “creating fixed demand in a fixed market”, and how that relates to this discussion, please?
  • Hi Scruff, I am simply referring to the fact that when most people who need their cars for work are forced off the road by financial restrictions and the licensing system (or whatever is required for shared cars) is ran as a cartel / handed to a corporate firm they will obviously hammer it for profit when people do not have a choice.

    Half the reason gas engineers charge what they do are the costs of being registered; of course this is presented as greed for the engineer when it is really the greed of the corporation running the ‘Scheme’.

    I may have been a tiny bit salty this morning, I normally let the pseudo-intellectual nonsense presented as facts wash over me but today I felt like questioning the ‘facts’ quoted about business to see if they would stand up to scrutiny.
  • Actually today feels like a good day to see who is and who is not vaccinated on this forum.
  • Car ownership in cities has been declining for decades for all sorts of reasons, mostly good ones.

    A significant percentage of people who still own cars don't use them for work. Someone posted some stats on that here once, but it's obvious just by looking out of your window. Most people have them because they're convenient for other trips.

    Why would driverless cars be run 'as a cartel'? There's competition for cab firms. People have overwhelmingly chosen Uber because of the cost and service, *despite* what the licensing authorities would like. Driverless cars would be cheaper than Uber is at present - because there is no driver to pay. This would further pitch the economic argument away from the need to own your own vehicle, hastening the decline.

    You have a habit of presenting oblique and obliquely-evidenced arguments (gas engineers? vaccinations?) while somewhat ironically dismissing the opposing argument as 'pseudo-intellectual' or whatever. What you haven't done is isolated and countered any of the specific arguments and evidence presented in the RethinkX report. Instead you've played the man not the ball and decided to call the CEO an idiot. Baffling. Like the worst aspects of Twitter.
  • edited January 2022
    Oh dear, I can address some of your points as I am waiting for my emails to download but the main issue is that you clearly do not fully understand how capitalism and business work in the real world.

    Comments like “Driverless cars would be cheaper than Uber is at present - because there is no driver to pay” prove this fact beyond all doubt.

    Also why would a company such as RethinkX need a ‘CEO’? It is just a made up term to add credence to a report that you happen to agree with.

    I do run a business and have done for 22 years; you can insult me (or use football analogies if you really want) but it is clear as day that you think you understand how it works while having an incorrect yet sanitised view of the realities.

    As an aside (seeing as you are still obviously trying to pseudo me) I brought up Gas Engineers because I used to be one and ran my own business which turned out to be a pretty big deal and is the reason why i still run a different business now.

    The accreditation system is ran by CAPITA yet branded as ‘Gas Safe’.

    CAPITA literally take the michael with fees as well as stealing customer information from Gas Engineers (who have to register customer details) and marketing to said customers directly or selling the data.

    It is massively unfair competition dressed up as a safety scheme ran by one provider (so also known as a cartel), yet is a reality of modern business practice.

    The RethinkX ‘report’ is not a report. I write reports for work that are used in both civil and criminal courts and they contain evidence as they have to be credible, believe me when I tell you that the RethinkX report is not credible and the ’CEO’ is an idiot.

    I was actually joking about discussing vaccinations as I could think of nothing worse although I would presume that you have ‘done your research’ and have had three jabs from the good eggs at Moderna / Pfizer.
  • Was the Corgi scheme better
  • You still haven't explained why the report isn't credible, you've just repeated the assertion and the insult. I write reports for a living too, I'm not going to accept your assertion from authority.

    Uber only take a 20-25% fee from the driver. The driver has many more expenses to make a living than just covering the cost of the vehicle, so there's a lot to play for in that remaining 75%, when it comes to reducing end-user costs. Businesses are in competition with each other and this, as a rule, drives down fees. *That's* capitalism.

    Your whole licencing body take seems off the mark to me. As I noted above, Uber have massively disrupted the urban taxi market and brought down fees despite the opprobrium of many licensing bodies including TfL. Nor are their licensing fees a significant percentage of the end-user fee.
  • edited January 2022

    No CORGI (aka The Dog) were even worse and were stripped of running the register for being so bad.

    They immediately stole the entire register of customers and then set about marketing to them directly (while masquerading as an authority) and offering to do servicing and repairs.

    They then (and still do) started to sub-contract the work out to existing engineers which they also obviously had full contact details for.

    They basically use the cheapest (generally meaning least experienced) engineer and then work up the line until they have a middle ground and unleash them onto the general public.

    People like me resisted this change and instead marketed ourselves directly to customers and actually found the likes of CORGI and British Gas useful because customers would think you were a saint if you could actually turn up on time. I was good at repairing boilers as well so was viewed as a saint because when I left people were suddenly warm and could have a shower.

    Out of interest I just looked up CORGI on Wikipedia and they state pretty much what I am saying above.

    Capita are a different beast to CORGI in many ways. They know that the Civil Servants have no qualms about wasting the public purse and scrutinising contracts is not really an agenda so they tie the client in with ridiculously bad contracts before finding loopholes and clauses to carry out the least amount of wok as possible.

    An example of this is the fact they promise to inspect X number of gas engineers every year.

    However instead of employing X number of inspectors they just hire a hotel suite for a day and do mass testing, aka filling in a paper questionnaire which is impossible to fail.

    As I have mentioned on here before (and was sneered at), licensing schemes in this country only prosecute the law abiding unless an accident happens. It is done by design.

    Alas with cheap labour flooding the entire building industry and the MSM egging it on while at the same time labelling British trades-people as lazy and greedy for having the audacity to be able to afford a house I left the entire industry and retrained in law.
  • edited January 2022

    You state that I use oblique references? Well maybe that is because they are actually factual as opposed to literally made up by a privately funded think tank and put onto Twitter to suit your narrative?

    I was not even going to bother replying to your latest post but after the “studies show” type comment I couldn’t resist having a look to see if your statement about car ownership declining in cities was correct, and it is not.

    The graph for London is below, I have also checked for England and it is the same.

    You stated that “Businesses are in competition with each other and this, as a rule, drives down fees. *That's* capitalism."

    No, *that’s* schoolboy economics.

    Capitalism finds the greatest level of fees that a market will bear and then uses it as a new minimum.

    Alternatively the market forces will exceed this level and then row back slightly, creating a new normal before pushing forward again.

    This is exactly the same way the government operate when taking away human rights.

    An *oblique* reference for you:

    If you can get a pint of beer for £2.50 in the three pubs on Seven Sisters Road (which you can) then how come 100 yards away The Swimmers can sell a pint for double at £5.00, how come the market forces do not apply?

    You do know that Uber have consistently made Billion Dollar losses?

    They have the CAPITAL to do this and as soon as they have decimated the competition they will drive up the prices, alternatively they may have a different end goal such as running the driverless network.

    They also use personalised algorithms based on cookies amongst other things so the more you use the service the higher the price gets, simple economic policy and used by all kinds of businesses like airlines.

    Let me try again regarding reports, seeing as you write reports as well.

    I write reports for work that are used in both civil and criminal high courts, if I exaggerate or lie in said reports I will have a claim on my indemnity insurance at best and could be made bankrupt or imprisoned at worst.

    I am around people who wield very strong judicial and political power for much of the time; it is a bit different of a different market to peddling out pretentious cyber-waffle.

    I refuse to read that ‘report’ again as it was making my eyes bleed, if you wish to take this as a victory then please do, and do keep sneering while looking out of the window.
  • edited January 2022
    I may have overstated the time period. But the figures you shared show a levelling off and then decline in the overall number of licensed vehicles.

    DVLA figures show car ownership is falling in London and many other cities:

    RAC too -annual registrations dropped for the fourth year in a row in 2020:

    Lambeth a delightful exception to the national picture:

    Significantly it's been falling as a percentage of households - especially among younger people - since before the total numbers started dropping off.

    I'm not sure you can be serious about the pub point. You still haven't explained why taxis minus the driver, who accounts for 75% of the fee, wouldn't be cheaper. Uber are in a unique position at the moment, but they won't have an effective monopoly forever (even if they *have* started turning a profit, as of last year). The monopoly will decline as soon as they put the price up and others can compete.
Sign In or Register to comment.