TFL & "Managed Decline"

[Bletchleyite]

On the issue of LTNs (which I really hope we can get some here in Belfast, way too many cars around!), the borough councils are actually quite influential, in that for the most part the decisions on whether, where and how they get introduced are made by the borough councils, so those elections where actually really relevant!

As LTNs primarily benefit (or disbenefit) residents on the roads they block, I would put them to local referendum of those residents, as is done with permit parking.

 

[SynthD]

LTNs are a decades old tool and London isn’t stabby. The mini Holland scheme made them well known, and studies of that scheme gave further proof to their success and popularity.

 

[43066]

and London isn’t stabby.

Do you live in London yourself, out of interest?

 

[SynthD]

Do you live in London yourself, out of interest?

If you want to get “out” of London by moving to zone 4/5, I guess I don’t live “in” London. Either way I look at statistics.

 

[43066]

If you want to get “out” of London by moving to zone 4/5, I guess I don’t live “in” London. Either way I look at statistics.

Huh? I’m fairly sure I do live in London, given that “London” is on my postal address…

I’ll repeat the question:

Do you live in London yourself, out of interest?

 

[MikeWh]

Do you live in London yourself,

It depends what you call London. I say yes because I pay my council tax to a London Borough. But postally I'm in Kent. My station is in zone 6 and all the buses in my town are red.

If you think zone 4 isn't London then I think you might be at cross purposes with many of us.

 

[Wolfie]

It depends what you call London. I say yes because I pay my council tax to a London Borough. But postally I'm in Kent. My station is in zone 6 and all the buses in my town are red.

If you think zone 4 isn't London then I think you might be at cross purposes with many of us.

I agree your logic. I'm in Zone 2 so no argument, lol.

 

[43066]

It depends what you call London. I say yes because I pay my council tax to a London Borough. But postally I'm in Kent. My station is in zone 6 and all the buses in my town are red.

If you think zone 4 isn't London then I think you might be at cross purposes with many of us.

I’ll be living in a “Kent” postcode shortly (if all goes well, God willing, Inshallah).

It’s still part of greater London - there’s an exceptionally sad debate that could be had about postcodes…

Chislehurst is the way forward.

I agree your logic. I'm in Zone 2 so no argument, lol.

Alright, Mr. Canonbury. Pipe down! You’re too posh for these parts .

 

[Horizon22]

I should have known that. I didn’t think we’d had a proper vote since the LTNs were introduced. I’m sufficiently disinterested to not argue the point in my usual fashion. I only pay attention to general elections, mayoral elections and Brexit referendums(!)

None of that changes the reality that London is a stabby, overpriced toilet of a place. The best thing I can do is flog the gaff and move to leafy old zone 4/5.

I must be getting old.

And LTNs were a significant part of some local campaigns, in some local boroughs, in some local neighbourhoods. The key is in the name of "local elections" - what is good in one place, is maybe not ideal for another or may be completely irrelevant.

The issue with cars of course is that they move. This might not necessarily be in neat ways along borough or ward boundaries. Transport modelling (particularly road transport with multiple routing options as in London) is actually an incredibly complex field with large computer models and systems that plan it. I can genuinely see both sides for LTNs but one criticism is that they've been a fairly crudely implemented system with consequences that can be small but far-reaching. And indeed one of them is that it has just shifted cars onto roads which were already saturated which can actually have an proportionally worse impact on boundary areas due to the network being over-capacity and blocking junctions. As I say, complex.

Calling London a "stabby, overpriced toilet" is rather hyperbolous though - London really should be say as about 100 small villages & towns which have merged together. Also anything within Zone 6 is likely to still be London however much some think they might be in Surrey, Essex, Hertfordshire, Middlesex (which hasn't existed for 50+ years) or Kent! All that said though, and despite London's many major benefits, it is getting rather easy to be priced out off & surrounding towns are only a slightly longer commuter away with similar lifestyles.

Each to their own though of course - some love the bustle and amenieties of the city, some love the peace and nature of the countryside, and some like prefer smaller towns. And there will be those that can't stand the other ways of living, such is human nature.

It depends what you call London. I say yes because I pay my council tax to a London Borough. But postally I'm in Kent. My station is in zone 6 and all the buses in my town are red.

If you think zone 4 isn't London then I think you might be at cross purposes with many of us.

Getting off-topic but the postal addresses mean nothing any more; Royal Mail themselves have said its redundant for some time. The only official thing is being in Greater London, and that's been true since 1965. There's just legacy issues regarding postcodes and dialling codes. A good video about what is London is here (and I'm sure many have seen it) if you have 10 minutes.

 

[hkstudent]

Postal county is definitely something should be eliminated even from database, which causes many confusion.

Many merchants still put adverts on street claiming they are the best xxx in XX postal county. But this would cause laughing cases.

For example, my local Tesco Megastore shows the map of supporting "local charities" of the community using a Kent County Council map as the postal county of my place is in Kent. But hang on, the whole of my town or even borough is not on the map, that's ridiculous.

Anyway, back to the issue of Outer London Boroughs and the Mayor. There has never been a easy relationship with east and southeast outer boroughs with the mayor since it's creation.

 

[AlbertBeale]

The best thing that could happen to this planet in environmental terms is having far fewer humans living on it.

You must surely agree with that statement, as an avowed climate protester, with good scientific knowledge?

It's clear that for our species to have a planet which is conducive to a pleasant and sustainable lifestyle for us, we need to make much less of a mark on the ecosystem. Logically, for this to be the case there needs to be fewer of us, or we need to have a much lower average (per person) environmental footprint, or some combination of the two. Obviously the former is preferable, in order that the lifestyle of those humans still around can be more (rather than less) pleasant; so yes. I broadly do agree.

The problem of course is the transition. We might need to go more down the second route, in the short term, in order for the first route to have time to happen (several generations after all). But given that - as a species - we've already more or less gone for broke, we might not have the luxury of choice. The ecosystem might well take the decision out of our hands...

 

[The Ham]

It's clear that for our species to have a planet which is conducive to a pleasant and sustainable lifestyle for us, we need to make much less of a mark on the ecosystem. Logically, for this to be the case there needs to be fewer of us, or we need to have a much lower average (per person) environmental footprint, or some combination of the two. Obviously the former is preferable, in order that the lifestyle of those humans still around can be more (rather than less) pleasant; so yes. I broadly do agree.

The problem of course is the transition. We might need to go more down the second route, in the short term, in order for the first route to have time to happen (several generations after all). But given that - as a species - we've already more or less gone for broke, we might not have the luxury of choice. The ecosystem might well take the decision out of our hands...

Fewer people isn't always going to have the same impact on Carbon Emissions.

If there was a choice between 100 fewer Americans or 100 fewer Brits their being 100 fewer Americans would have a noticeable bigger impact on emissions. However if the choice was between Brits and an Indian, then it's better that there's fewer Brits.

Of course less emissions can be created by building stuff if that reduces usage emissions.

For example building a well insulated house can be better for the environment than living in a older house.

Likewise if we could reduce air travel and even reduce the amount we use the motorway network then building railway lines (especially electric lines) can be better.

The per person per km emissions from all rail is comparable to just EV's. Yes the grid decarbonising will help EV's but it also helps electric trains. However rail can decarbonise more as there's a lot of diesel currently being used, so even bimodals allowing more use of wires can have a significant impact on the emissions of rail. Add in some more electrification of the existing network and road travel just doesn't stand a chance in being close.

Yes the ideal is that we all travel less, however the choice should be:

Don't travel
Walk
Cycle/scoot (manual)
Cycle/scoot (electric)
Public transport
Car (electric)
Car (ICE)
Air

The problem is that too many drive/fly, when it's reasonable to use another method.

In part because once you own a car the additional cost of that mile round trip is small, so the car gets used.

 

[tomuk]

In fact, of course, people wanting a human-survivable planet are opposing both HS2 and the Lower Thames Crossing (everyone I know who's against one is against both) - since both schemes make the climate crisis worse for years to come.

It will have no effect on having a survivable planet. Looking at the figures for Phase one the construction CO2 was estimated at most 6.1 million tonnes for comparison the global emissions for flights was 915 million tonnes for 2019 alone. So building HS2 represents only 2/3 of one percent of flight emissions in one year. The reduction n flights due to Covid reduced emissions many times more than this from building HS2. Arguing against HS2 on CO2 emission grounds is mathematically and environmentally illiterate.

 

[SynthD]

I've since lost the source for this figure, which frustrates me to no end, but one TFL document I read put the cost of running the service compared to the train sitting empty in the depot as the revenue from 36 passenger fares.

If there's more than 36 passengers on the train, its covering the marginal cost of running the service. Everyone else on board is covering the permanent costs TFL has to pay regardless of if the trains are running or not.

And you can get 36 passengers on a tube train even at midnight on a Tuesday.

Does anyone recall seeing this source, or know a more accurate number?

 

[stuu]

Does anyone recall seeing this source, or know a more accurate number?

Might be true if there are 36 passengers paying the full fare, but how likely is that with capping in place?

 

[Wolfie]

It will have no effect on having a survivable planet. Looking at the figures for Phase one the construction CO2 was estimated at most 6.1 million tonnes for comparison the global emissions for flights was 915 million tonnes for 2019 alone. So building HS2 represents only 2/3 of one percent of flight emissions in one year. The reduction n flights due to Covid reduced emissions many times more than this from building HS2. Arguing against HS2 on CO2 emission grounds is mathematically and environmentally illiterate.

Of course those in favour of every development could make similar arguments, resulting in nothing changing.

 

[Trainbike46]

Might be true if there are 36 passengers paying the full fare, but how likely is that with capping in place?

The only way to be sure would be if someone has the document, however it is very possible it wasn't based on the full fare, but instead on the average fare paid.

If someone has the statistics to confirm or deny this that would be great, but I think a lot of people don't actually hit the cap (most days in london I don't!), and if they do, the difference between the capped fare and the full fares wouldn't usually be that big anyway

 

[AlbertBeale]

Fewer people isn't always going to have the same impact on Carbon Emissions.

If there was a choice between 100 fewer Americans or 100 fewer Brits their being 100 fewer Americans would have a noticeable bigger impact on emissions. However if the choice was between Brits and an Indian, then it's better that there's fewer Brits.

Of course less emissions can be created by building stuff if that reduces usage emissions.

For example building a well insulated house can be better for the environment than living in a older house.

Likewise if we could reduce air travel and even reduce the amount we use the motorway network then building railway lines (especially electric lines) can be better.

The per person per km emissions from all rail is comparable to just EV's. Yes the grid decarbonising will help EV's but it also helps electric trains. However rail can decarbonise more as there's a lot of diesel currently being used, so even bimodals allowing more use of wires can have a significant impact on the emissions of rail. Add in some more electrification of the existing network and road travel just doesn't stand a chance in being close.

Yes the ideal is that we all travel less, however the choice should be:

Don't travel
Walk
Cycle/scoot (manual)
Cycle/scoot (electric)
Public transport
Car (electric)
Car (ICE)
Air

The problem is that too many drive/fly, when it's reasonable to use another method.

In part because once you own a car the additional cost of that mile round trip is small, so the car gets used.

Re your first point - yes, that's why I referred to cutting average per capita hits on the planet, as well as total numbers of people. Which is why cutting consumption by current high consumers is urgent, since lowering the overall population will take generations.

As to electric personal transport (cycles/scooters) being less good than person-powered ones but better than public transport - not necessarily. The embedded carbon, and environmental destructiveness, of battery production means that powered bikes and scooters aren't necessarily a panacea - it's often better that their users use pubic transport if they're unable to cycle/scoot under their own power.

But "too many drive/fly"- yes, this is a key issue, and stopping most driving and flying is a "quick win" to help salvage the situation while other longer-term changes are made. Though "when it's reasonable to use another method" ... well, "reasonable" is very subjective!

 

[tomuk]

and stopping most driving and flying is a "quick win" to help salvage the situation

Where? In LTNs? In London? In the UK? In Europe? Across the World? If you believe that that is a solution you are deluded.

 

[The Ham]

Re your first point - yes, that's why I referred to cutting average per capita hits on the planet, as well as total numbers of people. Which is why cutting consumption by current high consumers is urgent, since lowering the overall population will take generations.

As to electric personal transport (cycles/scooters) being less good than person-powered ones but better than public transport - not necessarily. The embedded carbon, and environmental destructiveness, of battery production means that powered bikes and scooters aren't necessarily a panacea - it's often better that their users use pubic transport if they're unable to cycle/scoot under their own power.

But "too many drive/fly"- yes, this is a key issue, and stopping most driving and flying is a "quick win" to help salvage the situation while other longer-term changes are made. Though "when it's reasonable to use another method" ... well, "reasonable" is very subjective!

Electric scooters/bikes vs public transport is fairly close, and it's probably still up for debate (especially given the move towards battery buses have similar issues, if not larger, due to battery production).

However the general point still stands that both are loads better than driving.

 

[Horizon22]

Anyway, back to the issue of Outer London Boroughs and the Mayor. There has never been a easy relationship with east and southeast outer boroughs with the mayor since it's creation.

Primarily because they are Tory voters and the Mayor has (traditionally) been Labour. Not sure how they took to Johnson.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Electric scooters/bikes vs public transport is fairly close, and it's probably still up for debate (especially given the move towards battery buses have similar issues, if not larger, due to battery production).

There are things that take it either way, such as that if you've had a few pints cycling may be ill advised and riding an escooter could lose you your car driving licence.

 

[leytongabriel]

Primarily because they are Tory voters and the Mayor has (traditionally) been Labour. Not sure how they took to Johnson.

I get SouthEast - Bromley and Bexley being Conservative buroughs that fought Livingstone's Fares Fair policy and ulitmately brought it down.
HKstudent said East as well though. Havering has a lot of Independents/Ratepayers and Tories, and Redbridge was Tory till two elections ago, but not sure they have been antogonsitic to the London Mayor as such.

 

[Cowley]

We think it’s probably time to draw this one to a close folks.
Actually we’ve forgotten what it was originally meant to be about so it’s probably for the best.

Thanks me dears.