Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists

I think I saw reference to that on twitter.

Have they said anything more about the progress of their Judicial Review?
They are still begging for money - only 198 of 1974 members have donated so far - presumably the other 1776 are silent pro LTN observers as well !!
 
These may be of interest


In May 2020, the DfT announced a £225m Emergency Active Travel Fund (EATF) for councils in England to encourage healthier and safer travel habits, allow for physical distancing, and prevent congestion on our roads. Funding was also made available by the Scottish and Welsh Governments to local authorities to encourage walking and cycling. Many projects delivered with the £42m first tranche of EATF generated local controversy and public backlash. The DfT acknowledged that some schemes were ‘nowhere near good enough’. A tight timetable for spending the ?42m, which gave little opportunity for consultation. In November 2020, the DfT announced the release of the second phase of this funding, £175m ‘for high-quality cycling?and?walking infrastructure across England’ to make local journeys safer for?everyone. The DfT added: • surveys reveal that nearly eight out of ten people support measures to reduce road traffic in their neighbourhood, and two thirds of people support reallocating road space for walking and cycling • the funding is allocated alongside strict plans set out by the Transport Secretary to ensure councils consult local communities Since the funding was announced, several studies last week have set out out the urgent case for why we need more active travel measures, and this webinar will explore the issues and addresses some of the criticisms made: • concerns about congestion • effects on businesses and residents • the consultation process and public support • evidence and case studies from across the country


In July 2020's Gear Change: A bold vision for cycling and walking, the DfT stressed that it 'will set much higher standards'. It said: 'Inadequate cycling infrastructure discourages cycling and wastes public money. Much cycling infrastructure in this country is inadequate. We have published new cycling design guidance which sets out the much higher standards we will now require if schemes are to receive funding. We do not seek perfection – but we do demand adequacy.' In November 2020, £175 million was announced for active travel schemes, following £42 million released in May, as research shows 8 out of 10 people support measures to reduce road traffic, and two-thirds support reallocating road space for active travel. However, this second tranche of Active Travel Funds comes with a renewed emphasis on high-quality schemes, rather than schemes delivered at pace. This webinar will explore how recent guidance is supporting Local Authorities to: • meet with recently set standards and guidance, such as the national cycle infrastructure design guidance (LTN 1/20) • deliver real benefit in both location and design of schemes • deliver schemes that support active modes yet do not have major detrimental impacts on other modes • deliver schemes that are in step with the needs of their local communities

 
Why are a small minority getting so mad at these LTNs? I live in Lambeth and there has been a huge reduction in traffic using the road as a rat run. This has improved the quality of life for all residents in the area.

It seems that anyone that is getting but blasted about these changes are the ones that are using residential streets as rat runs. Just use the main arteries.
 
Why are a small minority getting so mad at these LTNs?
I live in Lambeth and there has been a huge reduction in traffic using the road as a rat run. This has improved the quality of life for all residents in the area.

It seems that anyone that is getting but blasted about these changes are the ones that are using residential streets as rat runs. Just use the main arteries.

I think you will find that there are a wide range of criticisms from the most extreme freedom of choice argument down to hyper local design and implementation issues. Although this thread is on a hyper local Brixton area board and has a hyper local title, most of the pro LTN cheerleading is on broad macro arguments whilst most of the criticism is around road by road, gate-by-gate hyper local design and implementation, and consultation. One group is accused of not seeing the bigger picture and the other of dictating from comfy home office workstations with their fingers in their ears. The two arguments do not really mesh very well. Now this thread has degenerated into a gossip column highlighting some not very bright posts on a tedious Facebook page.

There are of course extreme polar views. Lycra clad mamils are as capable of being hate fueled and blinkered as their motorist counterparts. Luckily these are both small but loud minorities. In between, critics and supporters are both generally more pragmatic and opinions more nuanced. But there is not much space on the internet for those comparatively boring views.
 
most of the criticism is around road by road, gate-by-gate hyper local design and implementation, and consultation.

What is it that convinces you that most of the criticism is generated by this stuff, rather than a more fundamental disagreement about the need and benefits of a re-allocation of road space and transport priorities?
 
It's actually quite disappointing that people are going around vandalising the temporary wooden blocks. This is taxpayers money people are wasting.
I suspect that most people whether they agree with, dislike or are ambivalent toward LTNs probably agree with you. Given that it happened in Loughborough Junction I guess it should not have come as a surprise. Maybe if the council had taken more time to plan it and placed cameras in in the right places, positioned out of reach, this would not have happened. Or the people who caused the damage would at least have been identifiable.

I may be wrong but I don't think it has been an ongoing issue on Railton Road or St Matthews Road. I cycle past them several times a day and they all seem intact.
 
I suspect that most people whether they agree with, dislike or are ambivalent toward LTNs probably agree with you. Given that it happened in Loughborough Junction I guess it should not have come as a surprise. Maybe if the council had taken more time to plan it and placed cameras in in the right places, positioned out of reach, this would not have happened. Or the people who caused the damage would at least have been identifiable.

I may be wrong but I don't think it has been an ongoing issue on Railton Road or St Matthews Road. I cycle past them several times a day and they all seem intact.

Unfortunately in Ferndale, whilst the boxes are still there, someone has ripped off all signs around the LTN. Even gone to the effort of ripping the signs off all the side roads leading to ours.
 
Unfortunately in Ferndale, whilst the boxes are still there, someone has ripped off all signs around the LTN. Even gone to the effort of ripping the signs off all the side roads leading to ours.
Surprised with all the video footage that was previously posted that no one manages to report it in progress. The Ferndale gates are far more heavily overlooked than many others.
 
Surprised with all the video footage that was previously posted that no one manages to report it in progress. The Ferndale gates are far more heavily overlooked than many others.

There are cameras on the one on Concanon Road now so hopefully they do!
 
So people who oppose LTNs can't win.

If they go through all the correct channels (raising money for Judiciall Review) or alleged vandalism they are to be criticised.
 
Why are a small minority getting so mad at these LTNs? I live in Lambeth and there has been a huge reduction in traffic using the road as a rat run. This has improved the quality of life for all residents in the area.

It seems that anyone that is getting but blasted about these changes are the ones that are using residential streets as rat runs. Just use the main arteries.

It was not small minority in Loughborough Junction. Explains why this time the Council has left LJ alone. Does not want angry Council tenants having a go at them.
 
Unfortunately in Ferndale, whilst the boxes are still there, someone has ripped off all signs around the LTN. Even gone to the effort of ripping the signs off all the side roads leading to ours.

From what Ive seen here the Ferndale LTN is getting more opposition than some of the other LTNs. Other example is Shakespere Road closure in the Railton LTN.

If the State is going to impose things on people this is what is going to happen.

Something that could change this is if the Council stated that these LTNs are temporary for the Pandemic.

That full consultation would be done say next spring when pandemic is over.

That the proper consultation woul include option to remove LTN in a particular area. Or amend. Example would be Shakespear Road road closure being removed.

The proper consultation would also include option that those who live in an LTN should have free movement around the area in a car.

Another issue ( broughtt up here) nagapie is people who are carers for those who need transport by car.
 
Next steps:


Im unclear what the next steps are.

Thr article says:
The council has now begun moving each scheme onto a formal trial basis using experimental traffic orders, which allow changes to road layouts to be trialled for up to 18 months so that residents can see how the changes work in practice, and share their feedback.

Then says this:

A full consultation will then take place where everyone will be able to have their say, with views considered alongside the data collected.

My understanding is that it is not necessary to do a ETO if this is about the pandemic. ( see my previous post where I looked this up). A temporary measure for pandemic does not have to be a ETO.

Nor do I understand why Clllr Holland is saying a full consultation will take place later on.

The point of a ETO is that the consultation takes place whilst the ETO is in place with that it goes to be permanent. The consultation that takes place whilst ETO is current is about tweaking the LTN.

Im lost to understand what Cllr Holland is going on about.

It is mixing up pandemic emergency measures with changes to road by using ETO. Which is not about full consultation after the the time period is over.

The"consultation" is during the 18 months.

An ETO to bring in a permanent LTN and the changes to roads during pandemic as temporary measure are separate issues.
 
Im unclear what the next steps are.

Thr article says:


Then says this:



My understanding is that it is not necessary to do a ETO if this is about the pandemic. ( see my previous post where I looked this up). A temporary measure for pandemic does not have to be a ETO.

Nor do I understand why Clllr Holland is saying a full consultation will take place later on.

The point of a ETO is that the consultation takes place whilst the ETO is in place with that it goes to be permanent. The consultation that takes place whilst ETO is current is about tweaking the LTN.

Im lost to understand what Cllr Holland is going on about.

It is mixing up pandemic emergency measures with changes to road by using ETO. Which is not about full consultation after the the time period is over.

The"consultation" is during the 18 months.

An ETO to bring in a permanent LTN and the changes to roads during pandemic as temporary measure are separate issues.
Maybe start by reading the document attached rather than the web page summary.
 
Maybe start by reading the document attached rather than the web page summary.

Read it.

The summary is misleading.

ETO were put in place early on. There was no early period with the Council now moving to formal period.

Cllr Holland says full consultation will happen at end of scheme.

But reason for an ETO is that the consultation takes place during the 18 months. With decision at the end.

The longer docoment appears to be suggesting that in particular cases consultation will be extended.

That may be so but Council if it puts in place an ETO is not obliged to. All it needs to show is that it consulted people during the ETO time period.
 
Read it.

The summary is misleading.

ETO were put in place early on. There was no early period with the Council now moving to formal period.

Cllr Holland says full consultation will happen at end of scheme.

But reason for an ETO is that the consultation takes place during the 18 months. With decision at the end.

The longer docoment appears to be suggesting that in particular cases consultation will be extended.

That may be so but Council if it puts in place an ETO is not obliged to. All it needs to show is that it consulted people during the ETO time period.
It seems to me that the council are committing to a consultation above and beyond the objection period that is legally part of an ETO

There is no obligation to consult as part of the ETO process according to this Experimental
 
Back
Top Bottom