Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Brian Taylor
Active Member
Crystal Palace consultation Jan 2021
Analysis of responses from those living within the Temporary LTN area:
Individual addresses were printed onto the individual letters hand delivered to the households in the area of the Temporary LTN (the area bounded by the A Roads including that in Bromley) and on the bordering A Roads. In response to the 6,022 letters delivered 1,523 responses were received, a response rate of 25%. A few households submitted more than one response. 75% of households / addresses within the Temporary LTN were not sufficiently motivated by the introduction of the Temporary LTN to respond, suggesting they did not have a particular view on the temporary scheme or its future.
Those living within the area of the Temporary LTN that responded, did so in the following ways:
Introduction of ANPR enforced LTN:
Agree or Strongly Agree with implementing an ANPR solution: 392 (26%)
Disagree or Strongly Disagree with implementing an ANPR solution: 951 (62%)
Should the scheme remain in its current format?
Agree or Strongly Agree with the scheme remaining: 236 (15%)
Disagree or Strongly Disagree with scheme remaining: 1,136 (75%)
Should the scheme be removed in its entirety?
Agree or Strongly Agree with removing the scheme: 932 (61%)
Disagree or Strongly Disagree with removing scheme: 345 (23%)
In summary, of those living within the LTN area that responded, 75% disagreed with scheme remaining and 62% disagreed with the implementation of an ANPR enforced LTN. However this only represents the views of people in around 25% households in the LTN area, the majority of people did not provide a response suggesting that they don’t have a particular view on this scheme.
Railton LTN from TfL report Sep 2020
The survey of attitudes revealed that there are advocates for and against LTNs being suitable for the local area. Some 56 per cent of those living inside the LTN believe it is suitable for their area (38 per cent disagree) and 53 per cent would like to see it continue (38 per cent disagree). However, outside the LTN, only 19 per cent believe it is suitable for their area (75 per cent disagree) and only 21 per cent would like to see it continue (72 per cent disagree).
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
By a whole 30% of respondents.
Whereas in Lambeth people can see how they work first.
Brian Taylor
Active Member
The Merton rejection was for new LTNs, they had plenty of opportunity to see 'how they work' in the area around them with the existing ones.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Why should we care what a lot of people “want”? Large numbers of people “want” to drive their car half a mile to the shops and not be mildly inconvenienced in any way. Their “want” can, and should, be ignored.
Brian Taylor
Active Member
Turnout in my ward 2018
Coldharbour council Election 2018
Coldharbour (3)
| Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labour Co-op | Emma Nye | 2,325 | 66.8 | ||
| Labour Co-op | Donatus Anyanwu * | 2,257 | 64.8 | ||
| Labour Co-op | Matthew Parr * | 1,975 | 56.7 | ||
| Green | Michael Groce | 761 | 21.9 | ||
| Green | Rashid Nix | 683 | 19.6 | ||
| Independent | Rachel Heywood * | 660 | 19.0 | ||
| Conservative | Michael Johnson | 228 | 6.5 | ||
| Conservative | Amy Hennessy | 217 | 6.2 | ||
| Conservative | Yvonne Stewart-Williams | 189 | 5.4 | ||
| Liberal Democrats | Olivier Bertin | 182 | 5.2 | ||
| Liberal Democrats | Henry McMorrow | 180 | 5.2 | ||
| Liberal Democrats | Clive Lewis | 173 | 5.0 | ||
| Turnout | 3,487 | 28.7 |
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
There's no point in turning out for that, labour will win.
Why only 30% against if they had seen what a failure they were?
Brian Taylor
Active Member
for anyone who had a problem with the Merton jpg I attached.
The actual responses on the proposed new LTNs were
LTN 1. 75.5% against
LTN 2. 59.9% against
LTN 3. 73.5% against
LTN 4. 71.6% against
on a response rate of 39.4%
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
Yes, so a maximum of 29.7% of the households they polled. In a borough where the majority do have access to a car.
It's even worse with the Crystal Palace one you posted up with a whopping 18.75% rejecting the plans.
Brian Taylor
Active Member
Maybe they should try that approach to counting votes at elections, or any other type of referendum or survey.
By that logic
'Why only 7% in support if they had seen what a success they were?'
Merton council didn't take your approach to counting, they cancelled the new LTNs. Does make you wonder what the numbers were in the 433 responses they discounted as not being within the consultation exercise.
715 | Agree | Disagree | Not sure | Total | |
| Barrier 1 | 36 | 213 | 33 | 282 | |
| Barrier 2 | 79 | 169 | 34 | 282 | |
| Barrier 3 | 43 | 207 | 32 | 282 | |
| Barrier 4 | 33 | 202 | 47 | 282 | |
| Average | 47.75 | 197.75 | 36.5 | 282 | |
| % of Responses | 16.93% | 70.12% | 12.94% | 100.00% | |
| % of Sent Out | 6.68% | 27.66% | 5.10% | 39.44% |
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
You seem to think the voices of those who own cars should carry equal weight with those who don’t in this debate. You’re wrong.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
I would suggest it’s because a greater percentage of them own cars compared to Lambeth.
I wonder what the results would be if they suggested ripping up the historical ltns in Merton....
Brian Taylor
Active Member
Would be nice if they asked
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
You want to get rid of the old historical ones as well?. Like the one on lambert/strathleven Rd in Brixton?.Would be nice if they asked
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
No, it wouldn’t.Would be nice if they asked
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I've yet to find an LTN opponent who doesn't dodge this question.
Brian Taylor
Active Member
Maybe they just can't be bothered playing along with another attempt to deflect attention.
Maybe you should ask the people round there who know the background and the affect, which I don't.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
But you're happy to post up results from another borough entirely, do you know the background there?
The question still stands though, if through traffic is good, what shouldn't all the historical ones go too?
snowy_again
Slush
And the Crystal Palace one times with one of the roads being closed due to a car driving into one of the shops in the CP triangle.
Lots of people blamed the traffic calming measures when really the increased traffic was caused by a speeding driver destroying someone’s business premises.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
teuchter
je suis teuchter
No, I feel pretty clear about the reason.
A very large portion of the openly presented argument against the LTN principle is the idea that it displaces traffic and pollution. On this specific point, there is agreement that things improve (pollution-wise) for those inside the LTN.
There is disagreement about the consequences for streets around the LTN, with opponents claiming that things here become unacceptably worse, and supporters claiming that the effects are small, and/or temporary, and are outweighed by the larger benefits.
Because those who support the LTNs are the ones that want to make a change from the status quo, they are put in this position of defending possible negative effects of making a change. They can talk all they wish about the current, ongoing negative consequences of not doing anything, but the anti-LTN side can avoid being held responsible for that because hey, they aren't suggesting changing anything, and it's for someone else to come up with alternative solutions.
Well, if the anti LTN side really believes that there's an overall benefit of maintaining things as they are; that is, traffic should not be concentrated on main roads but be allowed to disperse freely as it wishes, then there should be no objection to widening that strategy so that more people can benefit from it. Any existing measures which are designed to keep traffic on main roads are already causing harm, so these measures should be removed.
The purpose of asking the question "ok should we remove historical LTNs" is to put the anti side in the position of defending and justifying an active intervention that follows their claimed principles and beliefs.
Of course an anti LTN person doesn't want to be put in the position where they have to advocate something that will directly increase traffic and pollution on someone's street. Of course they don't want to become answerable to those people. That would require full courage in their convictions, and I don't believe they have it. If they did, they would prove it by being happy to advocate removing long-existing restrictions.
Speaking for myself - but I think this would apply to most people who are basically in favour of the LTNs - I do have the courage of my convictions. It might be that I am wrong, but I do genuinely believe that LTN type strategies are part of what needs to be done to reduce the problems that traffic creates. It is never easy when you are confronted with someone who tells you that they live on a main road, and they believe pollution has increased as a result. I am able in most cases to say to those people that I genuinely believe that pursuing the LTNs will in the long term make things better or at least no worse for them.
If those who oppose LTNs on the basis that they unfairly displace pollution to main roads really believe that, then their rationale should apply to LTNs whether they were put in place in 2020 or 1970. I would stop short of saying that all those who use this argument are doing so disingenuously (although I think some certainly are). I think there are probably lots of people for whom it's a genuine worry, but they may not be willing to examine the thinking behind it. Either way, the result is that whenever this question is asked, it is avoided.
Last edited:
Ol Nick
beer in Brixton
Well it’s too late. They’ve opened Atlantic. Go along and take a look at the beautiful condition of those new arches.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I wonder if any of the traders along Atlantic Rd might wish for a return to the closure, once traffic starts grinding along there again.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Similar threads
