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

[edcraw]

It’s the fact that full consultation and assessments hasn’t been undertaken. An example would be lack of dropped curbs where there is a cycle lane on the inside. A lane like that means that someone in a wheelchair has to cross a busy cycle Lane to get to the road and hail a taxi. Full consultation would highlight issues such as these. Without that process you end up in a position where these vulnerable people are no longer protected. This is just one small example but the fact that it exists shows the lack of work undertaken to evaluate the impact of the changes.

So is the court case arguing about the legal basis of ETOs & TTOs?

 

[chowce5382]

So is the court case arguing about the legal basis of ETOs & TTOs?

Amongst other things and other pieces of legislation, yes.

 

[teuchter]

It’s the fact that full consultation and assessments hasn’t been undertaken. An example would be lack of dropped curbs where there is a cycle lane on the inside. A lane like that means that someone in a wheelchair has to cross a busy cycle Lane to get to the road and hail a taxi. Full consultation would highlight issues such as these. Without that process you end up in a position where these vulnerable people are no longer protected. This is just one small example but the fact that it exists shows the lack of work undertaken to evaluate the impact of the changes.

I would completely agree that changes shouldn't be made to street design that create further obstacles for wheelchair users.

Whereabouts in the LTNs has the situation you describe (lack of dropped kerbs) arisen?

 

[snowy_again]

I would completely agree that changes shouldn't be made to street design that create further obstacles for wheelchair users.

Whereabouts in the LTNs has the situation you describe (lack of dropped kerbs) arisen?

According to the OL Facebook group there aren’t any busy cycle lanes.

 

[Not a Vet]

I’m a bit confused (doesn’t take much tbf). I can only comment on the Railton/Shakespeare LTN, but the only physical changes I can see are planters on the road backed by signs/cameras to enforce. Nothing on the pavements so any obstacles much pre-date the LTN, surely?

 

[chowce5382]

I would completely agree that changes shouldn't be made to street design that create further obstacles for wheelchair users.

Whereabouts in the LTNs has the situation you describe (lack of dropped kerbs) arisen?

There is a good example in Ealing where the cycle path has been put in using “wands”. Nowhere for wheelchair users to cross as a result of the cycle Lane and then no dropped curbs.
There are other examples which act as impediments to disabled people having proper access we’ve been shown by disabled people which will form part of the case

According to the OL Facebook group there aren’t any busy cycle lanes.

but the idea is that they will be busy

 

[chowce5382]

I’m a bit confused (doesn’t take much tbf). I can only comment on the Railton/Shakespeare LTN, but the only physical changes I can see are planters on the road backed by signs/cameras to enforce. Nothing on the pavements so any obstacles much pre-date the LTN, surely?

Every area is different and there have been different changes so it’s difficult it take one area and then assume that everywhere that implementation has occurred has been equally affected.

 

[edcraw]

Not sure what’s this got to do with LTNs in Lambeth but can’t see how wands stop wheelchair users.

 

[teuchter]

There is a good example in Ealing where the cycle path has been put in using “wands”. Nowhere for wheelchair users to cross as a result of the cycle Lane and then no dropped curbs.
There are other examples which act as impediments to disabled people having proper access we’ve been shown by disabled people which will form part of the case

but the idea is that they will be busy

Your case is about the Lambeth LTNs isn't it? So what are the examples in Lambeth?

 

[teuchter]

Not sure what’s this got to do with LTNs in Lambeth but can’t see how wands stop wheelchair users.

I thought the wands were all part of TfL schemes anyway, not LTNs.

 

[chowce5382]

I was going to ask that but I guess he’s just using it as an example.

it would be great to see OneLambeth actually campaign for improvements for wheelchair users as it really seems the court case is trying to get rid of

Not sure what’s this got to do with LTNs in Lambeth but can’t see how wands stop wheelchair users.

If you’re in a wheelchair, normally a taxi would indicate and stop y the side of the road. Where there are wands and a cycle Lane then a wheelchair user would need to cross the cycle Lane and then hail a taxi whilst sitting in between the cycle lane and the road. This is obviously not great of them and is a consequence in the cycle Lane. It’s an example of the kind of impact that the lack of consultation and impact assessment can have. I can’t go through every example of difficulties in Lambeth for obvious reasons which I hope you’ll understand

 

[chowce5382]

Not sure what’s this got to do with LTNs in Lambeth but can’t see how wands stop wheelchair users.

Yup, it’s an example. You suggest that we campaign for improvements. We’ve asked the council repeatedly to undertake full
Impact assessments and consult. They haven’t done this which is why we’re having the ask the courts to make them undertake the assessments which would lead to the improvements you suggest. It is as simple as that, we’re doing this to ensure that, whatever is implemented by the council, is done in such a way that protects vulnerable people

 

[chowce5382]

I thought the wands were all part of TfL schemes anyway, not LTNs.

They are part of the streetspace scheme which is linked to the funding given for LTNs.

 

[Not a Vet]

The fundamental question here though and if you browse through the 154 pages here, you will see, it’s been widely debated is what is the alternative? I’m pro LTN but didn’t start off that way. However I’m still happy to discuss how they can work better but the alternative view still seems to offer nothing apart from scrap the lot and return to status quo.

 

[chowce5382]

The fundamental question here though and if you browse through the 154 pages here, you will see, it’s been widely debated is what is the alternative? I’m pro LTN but didn’t start off that way. However I’m still happy to discuss how they can work better but the alternative view still seems to offer nothing apart from scrap the lot and return to status quo.

The alternative has to be focussed on a reduction in pollution. The issue is that outside LTNs congestion has gone up and congestion leads to higher pollution levels which seems like the wrong response. We were also told that by this point (6 months or more in) that the process of traffic evaporation would be almost complete. In any event, anything that is implemented must protect the rights of the most vulnerable in society. I’m not against the lowering of traffic, I live in an LTN and don’t have a car but when we start to implement measures and don’t take account of how they impact those that need te protection of society that can’t be right. We’re having to go to court to protect those rights. As we aren’t a political group we just don’t have the funding to scope out a costed alternative but any alternative that is put forward must ensure that the vulnerable are protected as a group.

 

[Not a Vet]

So that’s a no then. We must get rid of them (on a technicality) but it’s for others to decide what to replace them with.

 

[Winot]

The alternative has to be focussed on a reduction in pollution. The issue is that outside LTNs congestion has gone up and congestion leads to higher pollution levels which seems like the wrong response. We were also told that by this point (6 months or more in) that the process of traffic evaporation would be almost complete. In any event, anything that is implemented must protect the rights of the most vulnerable in society. I’m not against the lowering of traffic, I live in an LTN and don’t have a car but when we start to implement measures and don’t take account of how they impact those that need te protection of society that can’t be right. We’re having to go to court to protect those rights. As we aren’t a political group we just don’t have the funding to scope out a costed alternative but any alternative that is put forward must ensure that the vulnerable are protected as a group.

If you win then presumably Lambeth can ‘cure’ the problem with a full impact assessment and consultation. If the result of that is that the LTNs stay (possibly in modified form) will you support them?

 

[teuchter]

The issue is that outside LTNs congestion has gone up and congestion leads to higher pollution levels which seems like the wrong response.

You state this as a given, but I don't believe there is any evidence that pollution (I assume you are talking baout air pollution?) has been raised as a result of the LTNs. Is there some evidence that I'm not aware of?

I'm aware that just because there's no evidence, that doesn't mean there's no effect, but I keep seeing this stated as a known fact.

 

[teuchter]

They are part of the streetspace scheme which is linked to the funding given for LTNs.

Ok, so is your court case also challenging the implementation of TfL's streetspace schemes?

Not sure I understand why you're not able to give examples of bad street design within Lambeth LTNs - if there are physical obstructions to wheelchair users on public streets then it's not private information, and presumably you have already raised them with Lambeth.

 

[chowce5382]

If you win then presumably Lambeth can ‘cure’ the problem with a full impact assessment and consultation. If the result of that is that the LTNs stay (possibly in modified form) will you support them?

I’ll support whatever the court suggests, if Lambeth follows what the courts suggest to the letter then yes but they have to follow legislation. That’s my red line, those in power can’t pick and choose what legislation they do and don’t want to follow

You state this as a given, but I don't believe there is any evidence that pollution (I assume you are talking baout air pollution?) has been raised as a result of the LTNs. Is there some evidence that I'm not aware of?

I'm aware that just because there's no evidence, that doesn't mean there's no effect, but I keep seeing this stated as a known fact.

we know that congestion is worse since LTNs as all of the scoot data shows this. We also know that cars emit 3 times as much CO2 when idling, this reduces the faster the car is going. We have raised this numerous times but they won’t
look at the underlying data. It’s incredibly frustrating as you just get told you’re a petrol head or part of the car lobby.

 

[Not a Vet]

One question that might be able to be answered? You’ve raised almost £30k but you still need £5000 more by 7th June. What happens if you don’t make the target?

 

[chowce5382]

Ok, so is your court case also challenging the implementation of TfL's streetspace schemes?

Not sure I understand why you're not able to give examples of bad street design within Lambeth LTNs - if there are physical obstructions to wheelchair users on public streets then it's not private information, and presumably you have already raised them with Lambeth.

I just don’t want to do anything which will prejudice our case, especially discussing in detail something we may rely on in court.

 

[chowce5382]

One question that might be able to be answered? You’ve raised almost £30k but you still need £5000 more by 7th June. What happens if you don’t make the target?

The case will still go ahead as we are now committed. If we don’t raise the £5000 then we would need to cut our cloth accordingly and reduce the number of changeable hours being spent on by the lawyers which could impact the case.

 

[Not a Vet]

Seems to me that there is a fatal flaw in your court case if it’s just based upon protecting the disabled. If Lambeth say, ok then, blue badge holders are exempted from the scheme, then the LTNs will stay in place which is a win for the vulnerable but I suspect most of your backers will see it as a loss

 

[chowce5382]

Seems to me that there is a fatal flaw in your court case if it’s just based upon protecting the disabled. If Lambeth say, ok then, blue badge holders are exempted from the scheme, then the LTNs will stay in place which is a win for the vulnerable but I suspect most of your backers will see it as a loss

It not just the disabled, it’s anyone who is protected under the equalities act, to do that we need to have a case study to put infront of the court which is what we’re doing. Have have already asked for blue bar she holders to be exempt, the council said that it was too difficult to manage as rejected it as unworkable

 

[Not a Vet]

I don’t think anyone on these boards would disagree about protecting vulnerable people, I just can’t see how this is linked into vehicle usage. People just need to drive less. There are different ways to discourage car use of which the current schemes are one way. I mean you could start removing parking spaces, make all the roads double yellow or red. Improve traffic flow from a-b and reduce vehicle ownership to those who can park off street for instance.

 

[teuchter]

I’ll support whatever the court suggests, if Lambeth follows what the courts suggest to the letter then yes but they have to follow legislation. That’s my red line, those in power can’t pick and choose what legislation they do and don’t want to follow

we know that congestion is worse since LTNs as all of the scoot data shows this. We also know that cars emit 3 times as much CO2 when idling, this reduces the faster the car is going. We have raised this numerous times but they won’t
look at the underlying data. It’s incredibly frustrating as you just get told you’re a petrol head or part of the car lobby.

I've not seen a coherent analysis of the scoot data.

Regarding the link between congestion and air pollution:

• Firstly, CO2 is a greenhouse gas; this is a separate issue from local air pollution
• 3 times as much CO2 than what?
• as far as I am aware, the connection between congestion and CO2 emissions, and between congestion and air pollutants, is poorly understood, whereas the connection between number of miles travelled and these things is quite well understood: the more miles people do in motor vehicles, the more CO2 emissions and the more air pollution we see. Congestion tends to occur regardless of the overall capacity of the road network; in other words increasing the space for motor vehicles doesn't solve congestion problems, but it does increase the number of miles travelled and hence the amount of pollution. It's nothing like as simple as you try and make it sound - your solution to congestion is to make it easier for people to drive more. If you want to show that LTNs have significantly increased air pollution then you need to actually measure air pollutants, not make speculative assumptions based on a lack of data. In my ideal world we'd be continuously measuring air pollution in lots of locations so we could try and look at effects pre and post LTNs, measured against meaningful benchmarks but unfortunately that is not available to us.

 

[chowce5382]

I've not seen a coherent analysis of the scoot data.

Regarding the link between congestion and air pollution:

• Firstly, CO2 is a greenhouse gas; this is a separate issue from local air pollution
• 3 times as much CO2 than what?
• as far as I am aware, the connection between congestion and CO2 emissions, and between congestion and air pollutants, is poorly understood, whereas the connection between number of miles travelled and these things is quite well understood: the more miles people do in motor vehicles, the more CO2 emissions and the more air pollution we see. Congestion tends to occur regardless of the overall capacity of the road network; in other words increasing the space for motor vehicles doesn't solve congestion problems, but it does increase the number of miles travelled and hence the amount of pollution. It's nothing like as simple as you try and make it sound - your solution to congestion is to make it easier for people to drive more. If you want to show that LTNs have significantly increased air pollution then you need to actually measure air pollutants, not make speculative assumptions based on a lack of data. In my ideal world we'd be continuously measuring air pollution in lots of locations so we could try and look at effects pre and post LTNs, measured against meaningful benchmarks but unfortunately that is not available to us.

This is the exact kind of that needs to be done but that isn’t being done. The miles travelled point is very easy to understand and it a simple calculation. The scoot data shows large spikes in rises in congestion compared to previous years since the LTNs have gone in. Whatever happens and is implemented I’m keen that we do all the right research to ensure that the best possible option is implemented. We quite new to this so can’t go on gut feeling but data. People stated getting milk delivered in bottles rather than from the supermarket. Reason being that plastic is bad for the environment. However, research soon showed that bottled milk has a considerably higher footprint than supermarket bought milk. I’m really don’t want us to fall into thaose kind of traps as a result of not having done the research properly.

 

[chowce5382]

I don’t think anyone on these boards would disagree about protecting vulnerable people, I just can’t see how this is linked into vehicle usage. People just need to drive less. There are different ways to discourage car use of which the current schemes are one way. I mean you could start removing parking spaces, make all the roads double yellow or red. Improve traffic flow from a-b and reduce vehicle ownership to those who can park off street for instance.

That’s good to hear, it’s why I thought that I’d join here having gone through about 100 pages of your posts on here.
LTNs have increased vehicle times and journey lengths for a number of vilnerable people. Turning a 15 minute journey into a 40-45 minute journey means that some people just can’t get to appointments because they can’t spent that much time in a car. I have personal experience of this. We should all be walking more or buying less polluting vehicles if we really need to drive. The ULEZ seems to work in terms of mileage driven

 

[Not a Vet]

So if Lambeth reverse their blue badge decision or provide an alternative then the LTN’s can stay with the vulnerable protected. I’m still not sure most of the one Lambeth backers would see that as a win but maybe I’m being too cynical