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

[thebackrow]

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

The crowdfunder says 1L are opposed to them in principle ("oppose these undemocratic, unhealthy and discriminatory LTNs" and that you reject the justification for them. And the petition linked from the 1L site calls for "immediate cessation and removal of LTNs"

According to the council LTNs have been put in "to reduce road danger and provide safe and accessible routes for walking, cycling, scooting and wheeling as part of the Mayor of London’s Streetspace for London plan". Love Lambeth - you reject that?

and you're saying the court case is to force Lambeth to undertake impact assessments and consult BUT they're already monitoring the impacts, taking feedback and have said there will be further consultation before anything is made permanent

 

[teuchter]

Whatever happens and is implemented I’m keen that we do all the right research to ensure that the best possible option is implemented.

Based on the current evidence base, LTN-like interventions are among the best possible options. They aren't without some issues, but we know that the status quo doesn't work. This is why people keep asking what your alternatives are. You don't have any, so by default your alternative is the status quo.

What about existing LTNs, ones that have been put in over the past few decades all over London. Do you advocate for their removal? You have the opportunity to be the first person advocating against the current implementations that I've seen answer this question.

 

[chowce5382]

The crowdfunder says 1L are opposed to them in principle ("oppose these undemocratic, unhealthy and discriminatory LTNs" and that you reject the justification for them. And the petition linked from the 1L site calls for "immediate cessation and removal of LTNs"

According to the council LTNs have been put in "to reduce road danger and provide safe and accessible routes for walking, cycling, scooting and wheeling as part of the Mayor of London’s Streetspace for London plan". Love Lambeth - you reject that?

and you're saying the court case is to force Lambeth to undertake impact assessments and consult BUT they're already monitoring the impacts, taking feedback and have said there will be further consultation before anything is made permanent

The legislation says that impact assessments must be done before implementation. If you're doing them during or afterwards then you have already made the decision to implement something but are open to the possibility that vulnerable people will suffer in the meantime and you (the council) are happy to accept that. This can't be the correct way to carry out changes and legilslation says that it isn't. The council have used commonplace to run a consultation, however, this digitally excludes people (mainly older who are another protected group) from taking part and we've have had numerous examples of older people sying this. Commonplace is also not a recognised consultative tool for this kind of undertaking. Ironically the council looked at commonplace, found that the comments on ten LTNS were overwhelmingly negative and have now said that they won't use that consultation but try another one.

The council said that the LTNs were put in place as a response to covid. Given that the plans were already being talked about before covid existed I'm surprised that LTNs just happened to be the perfect response to stop to spread of covid. That is serendipitous indeed.

One thing I really take issue with is the idea of implementing something, not working out the impact of that implementation and then saying that you'll work out who is affected in the meantime. The reason we have the equalities act is to ensure this doesn't happen, the council know this but decided that they wouldn't go through the appropriate steps. I don't think this is right.

 

[chowce5382]

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

This would only help disabled people with a blue badge, not their carers (who have had to start decreasing the number of people they see due to journey times) and also none of the other groups of people with protected characteristics under the Act. It has to cover all vulnerable people. In any event, Lambeth told us at the beginning of this that a blue badge exemption was impossible.

 

[chowce5382]

Based on the current evidence base, LTN-like interventions are among the best possible options. They aren't without some issues, but we know that the status quo doesn't work. This is why people keep asking what your alternatives are. You don't have any, so by default your alternative is the status quo.

What about existing LTNs, ones that have been put in over the past few decades all over London. Do you advocate for their removal? You have the opportunity to be the first person advocating against the current implementations that I've seen answer this question.

I'm arguing against the manner in which they have been implemented. once all the assessments have been undertaken and the law followed then whatever will be implemented will be implemented but it will ensure that vulnerable people are protected. Implementation of any road changes must always be done in accordance with the law.

I know that this does not provide a solution to the issue but i just don't have the means to come up with something that is costed and with the data to back it up. Over the last 3 months I've been accused of being a member of UKIP, a climate change denier, a motoring enthusiast. I'm none of these but wanted to come on here to outline the reason why I'm doing this. I completely understand the general frustration that people don't have the answer or an alternative. My primary concern is the protection of vulnerable groups. Whatever is implemented, my objectives remain the same, namely to ensure that vulnerable people are properly protected and the council carries out its duty of care towards these groups. It's a personal issue for me and one which I feel, to an extent, defines the kind of democracy in which we wish to live.

 

[sleaterkinney]

The problem with changes like these is that they take time to bed in, people won't alter their transportation overnight, so actually implementing them for a trial period is the best way - people can see what the change is.

 

[chowce5382]

The problem with changes like these is that they take time to bed in, people won't alter their transportation overnight, so actually implementing them for a trial period is the best way - people can see what the change is.

I understand your point but even before to have the trial period the law says you must undertake certain steps to protect vulnerable people.

 

[thebackrow]

The council said that the LTNs were put in place as a response to covid. Given that the plans were already being talked about before covid existed I'm surprised that LTNs just happened to be the perfect response to stop to spread of covid. That is serendipitous indeed.

I'm pretty certain no-one except those trying to get them removed has ever tried to claim LTNs have anything to do with "stopping the spread of COVID". Lambeth's justification was in my post (none of which you've actually responded to in your reply).

 

[thebackrow]

d. once all the assessments have been undertaken and the law followed then whatever will be implemented will be implemented but it will ensure that vulnerable people are protected.

Equalities impact assessment

In August 2020, we published an Equalities Impact Assessment. This assessed the impact of the Railton Low Traffic Neighbourhood on different demographic groups including the protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity...

beta.lambeth.gov.uk

But there seems to have been an Equalities Impact Assessment in place since August - not long after the first changes went in and long before the Railton scheme was being enforced.

 

[sleaterkinney]

I'm arguing against the manner in which they have been implemented. once all the assessments have been undertaken and the law followed then whatever will be implemented will be implemented but it will ensure that vulnerable people are protected. Implementation of any road changes must always be done in accordance with the law.

Are you open to the people who are donating that even if you do win, it won't lead to the LTNs being taken out?.

 

[Not a Vet]

I’m sorry I just don’t buy the “we are protecting the vulnerable” argument as what you are about. Shame that wasn’t done by say providing a wheelchair accessible stage at your last rally for your main speaker.

 

[chowce5382]

Equalities impact assessment

In August 2020, we published an Equalities Impact Assessment. This assessed the impact of the Railton Low Traffic Neighbourhood on different demographic groups including the protected characteristics (age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity...

beta.lambeth.gov.uk

But there seems to have been an Equalities Impact Assessment in place since August - not long after the first changes went in and long before the Railton scheme was being enforced.

This is not a full impact assessment by any means. You have to go into a considerable amount of detail, back it up with studies and data. None of that is here I'm afraid. I've been involved in a number of these previously and this doesn't meet the requirements of the Act.

 

[chowce5382]

I’m sorry I just don’t buy the “we are protecting the vulnerable” argument as what you are about. Shame that wasn’t done by say providing a wheelchair accessible stage at your last rally for your main speaker.

Ok, that's fine. I know my motivation to do this and it is exactly that. My father suffered from a hugely debilitating disease for a number of years when i was younger. I saw exactly how these protections are vital to protecting vulnerable people and what happens when they aren't protected. As regards the stage, that's a cheap shot but we asked Sofia what she wanted and she said a stage was fine. Remember, we aren't the council so there is a different level of what can be expected.

 

[chowce5382]

Are you open to the people who are donating that even if you do win, it won't lead to the LTNs being taken out?.

If a judge declares them as unlawful they could be taken out with an onus on the council to run a full implementation study and follow all the requirements of the act before anything is reimplemented. It depends what the judge orders.

 

[Not a Vet]

Hmm, courts deciding political decisions. Now where have we seen that before.

 

[teuchter]

I'm arguing against the manner in which they have been implemented. once all the assessments have been undertaken and the law followed then whatever will be implemented will be implemented but it will ensure that vulnerable people are protected. Implementation of any road changes must always be done in accordance with the law.

I know that this does not provide a solution to the issue but i just don't have the means to come up with something that is costed and with the data to back it up. Over the last 3 months I've been accused of being a member of UKIP, a climate change denier, a motoring enthusiast. I'm none of these but wanted to come on here to outline the reason why I'm doing this. I completely understand the general frustration that people don't have the answer or an alternative. My primary concern is the protection of vulnerable groups. Whatever is implemented, my objectives remain the same, namely to ensure that vulnerable people are properly protected and the council carries out its duty of care towards these groups. It's a personal issue for me and one which I feel, to an extent, defines the kind of democracy in which we wish to live.

I certainly don't see a problem with that in principle - yes, if changes are implemented then the needs of the vulnerable should be protected. If you think that Lambeth have not followed their obligations in that regard then I can't object to you trying to hold them to account. Although I want to see the schemes succeed, I'm no stranger to the frustrations of dealing with Lambeth as an institution, and if you pursuing them in this court case forces them (or has already forced them) to pay more attention to stuff that they have neglected, or would otherwise have neglected, then that can't be a bad thing. For me, if the result of them not having proper procedure were that the whole thing had to get called off, then I wouldn't see that as a positive result because I believe the benefits overall to be big enough that they can outweigh the disbenefits. After all, I believe there are a considrable number of vulnerable people who are disadvantaged by the status quo. That's of course an opinion that anyone can be free to disagree with.

I would like to take your word that you are essentially only involved in the court action because you want to see proper process followed, not because you are fundamentally against the aims of the policy. I know that it is easy for people to decide that those on the "other side" have sinister or undisclosed interests, especially in the online/social media environment. It's always easy to suspect the worst about others' motivations. And fair play to you for coming on here as your "real" self rather than being at least partly anonymous as many of us here choose to do.

I also understand that in any of these kinds of things, you will end up acting alongside others who you might not fully agree with. They might say things that get attributed to a campaign or cause that you would not have said yourself. Maybe that includes some of the stuff written in the blurb for the gofundme page; I don't know. There are some things you've said that don't entirely help though; for example in your speech in Windrush square, where you say that Lambeth have "pushed through ideological change that basically benefits a few lycra-clad white middle class men". Because that kind of loaded statement doesn't give the impression that it's only the process of implementation that you have a problem with, it gives the impression that you consider the essence of the changes problematic. Of course, you'd be free to be of that opinion. But because it shares some of the rhetoric often used by, say, the motorist lobby, maybe that's why people would associate you with those interests.

 

[sleaterkinney]

If a judge declares them as unlawful they could be taken out with an onus on the council to run a full implementation study and follow all the requirements of the act before anything is reimplemented. It depends what the judge orders.

But your court case is against the equalities impact assessment, not the LTNs. They can always just do another assessment.

Also, is that what you want, them to be fully removed?

 

[alex_]

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

Presumably they’ve removed all of the dropped kerbs which were there before ?

Alex

 

[BigTom]

Presumably they’ve removed all of the dropped kerbs which were there before ?

Alex

Wouldn't have needed dropped kerbs before, as the ramp from the taxi goes onto the pavement. With the cycle lane in the way, that can no longer happen. Whilst existing drop kerbs might be sufficient, there may well be places where the gaps between dropped kerbs are quite long or are not at a suitable place for taxis to stop (like at junctions where you'd expect to have dropped kerbs).

 

[sleaterkinney]

Wouldn't have needed dropped kerbs before, as the ramp from the taxi goes onto the pavement. With the cycle lane in the way, that can no longer happen. Whilst existing drop kerbs might be sufficient, there may well be places where the gaps between dropped kerbs are quite long or are not at a suitable place for taxis to stop (like at junctions where you'd expect to have dropped kerbs).

The same would go for anywhere with parked cars. A wheelchair might not be able to get through them at all.

 

[Gramsci]

I still don’t get this. If you can’t describe what you would change how would you respond to a consultation? What “choices” are you hoping for, because presumably the councils “experts” have used the resources they have to come up with the schemes in place.

Of course 1/2L want to reduce traffic, but just not in a way that inconveniences them in any way personally. If you’ve found where the unicorns are stabled please let us all know.

What I'm saying, and have said more than once, is that the Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood scheme was going to have full consultation.

This after all was originally what this thread was about.

This Council decided to use the pandemic to push it through without consultation.

Hence the situation now with Judicial review pending.

Which I think is justified.

 

[Gramsci]

To follow this up, it is worth noting that a deputation was sent to the council some time back with a number of different suggestions as regards exemptions which would help disabled people (amongst other protected groups). The council said that exemptions were not possible, neither were impact assessments or consultation prior to implementation. This is why people are donating. My view is that you should never really have to take a political body to court to ask them just to abide by legislation, if you are in that position then it’s very much a last resort as a result of being ignored.

So to be clear the Council is unwilling to consider any compromise? That is what has forced your group to go down the legal route?

 

[Jeanette Moo]

I'm pretty certain no-one except those trying to get them removed has ever tried to claim LTNs have anything to do with "stopping the spread of COVID". Lambeth's justification was in my post (none of which you've actually responded to in your reply).

Isn't that exactly what the council said? All of this was brought up under the guise of stopping the spread of COVID.

When you go to the commonplace site to add feedback on the LTNs all it talked about was the COVID action plan, stopping the spread of COVID. Those who did get a letter telling them what was going on - COVID COVID COVID. Sure, the narrative has shifted as more and more people called it out but it was 100% all down to COVID.

 

[Jeanette Moo]

But your court case is against the equalities impact assessment, not the LTNs. They can always just do another assessment.

Also, is that what you want, them to be fully removed?

From the Taxi court case a few months back i'm sure the papers said the judges only consider data that was available at the time. I.e they cant half ass it and make good after, it's not how the system works.

Given I recall the orignal impact assessments only listed info about people with learning disabilities in the disabled section that's not a good start.

What I want to know is if it's so easy that they can just make changes after why is the taxi case going to appeal? Why not just say 'fair enough' and make changes? What happens here in Lambeth if the council lose? Is appealing a process to save face? to waste time? The 'what next' stage is where i'm lost.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Isn't that exactly what the council said? All of this was brought up under the guise of stopping the spread of COVID.

When you go to the commonplace site to add feedback on the LTNs all it talked about was the COVID action plan, stopping the spread of COVID. Those who did get a letter telling them what was going on - COVID COVID COVID. Sure, the narrative has shifted as more and more people called it out but it was 100% all down to COVID.

I think LTNs, reducing car use etc are a good enough thing by themselves, but COVID has made them needed even more, as we come out of lockdown people will be reluctant to use public transport and there isn’t enough space for those people to all drive. And there’s the pollution thing too - which was an issue before ltns.

They’re not trying to shift the narrative at all, COVID has given just another reason for them.

 

[chowce5382]

So to be clear the Council is unwilling to consider any compromise? That is what has forced your group to go down the legal route?

We asked the council in an official deputation. The answer was that our request was unworkable and impossible

 

[sleaterkinney]

From the Taxi court case a few months back i'm sure the papers said the judges only consider data that was available at the time. I.e they cant half ass it and make good after, it's not how the system works.

Given I recall the orignal impact assessments only listed info about people with learning disabilities in the disabled section that's not a good start.

What I want to know is if it's so easy that they can just make changes after why is the taxi case going to appeal? Why not just say 'fair enough' and make changes? What happens here in Lambeth if the council lose? Is appealing a process to save face? to waste time? The 'what next' stage is where i'm lost.

As far as I know, the court case is just against the way the decision was made, not the actual decision itself.

 

[chowce5382]

Presumably they’ve removed all of the dropped kerbs which were there before ?

Alex

The roads have changed and the generally structure in terms of what is using then. They haven’t put dropped kerbs in and, possibly more importantly, haven’t put in zebra crossing for wheelchair users in the appropriate places. They haven’t even thought of doing this

But your court case is against the equalities impact assessment, not the LTNs. They can always just do another assessment.

Also, is that what you want, them to be fully removed?

the LTNs have not been implemented with the benefit of proper impact assessments. I am against the implementation of something that doesn’t take into account vulnerable people.
they haven’t done assessments that are required under the Act. What I don’t understand is why the council won’t just follow the law and undertake full assessments. It doesn’t make sense. If you have the courage of you convictions you follow everything to the letter of the law and then implement your idea to the full extent allowed bu the law, you don’t ignore your obligations and just try to push things through

 

[Jeanette Moo]

I think LTNs, reducing car use etc are a good enough thing by themselves, but COVID has made them needed even more, as we come out of lockdown people will be reluctant to use public transport and there isn’t enough space for those people to all drive. And there’s the pollution thing too - which was an issue before ltns.

They’re not trying to shift the narrative at all, COVID has given just another reason for them.

The point someone else made was that stopping the spread of COVID was never the ppint of LTNs but it's all we heard when they were being put in. Now the narrative moves when such resistance is seen. That alone is the cause of much rage...the sheer cheek of it.

I agree with all the other points but what are we - coming up to a year in and still waiting for good results. How can it get better if it's this bad now and we are not even back to normal.

 

[Jeanette Moo]

Sorry but i'm having one of my rare days where I actually caught up on this thread and now can't stop

Three quarters of people consulted do not want low-traffic schemes

More that 25,000 residents have been surveyed by councils

www.telegraph.co.uk

Three quarters of people consulted do not want low-traffic schemes
More that 25,000 residents have been surveyed by councils
By
Dominic Penna
29 May 2021 • 7:00pm
An estimated 5,000 residents took to the streets of Ealing last month in protest against the increasing number of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods
Nearly three quarters of people who have been consulted over low-traffic neighbourhoods and cycle lanes are against their rollout, analysis by The Telegraph shows.

More than 25,000 residents and visitors have been surveyed as part of the 10 consultations published by councils to date. Dozens more reviews are expected to follow in the coming weeks.

In the consultations made public so far, 18,314 people have expressed a negative view of the active travel schemes, vastly outnumbering the 7,020 residents who expressed their support.

In Harrow, 6,073 survey participants (82 per cent) disapproved of the council’s schemes, which later became the first in the country to be completely removed after a six-month consultation.

In Windsor and Maidenhead, 1,998 of 2,221 residents (89 per cent) rejected plans to extend trial schemes in an overwhelming verdict that has prompted the council to promise a “big conversation” with residents about its active travel agenda.

Advertisement

Two consultations came as an exception to the general rule, with 64 per cent of feedback in Bromley and 64.7 per cent in North Yorkshire in favour of the schemes.

Further analysis by this newspaper found that more than one in three councils have axed, modified or reduced their active travel schemes since Grant Shapps allocated a total of £2 billion across 110 local authorities last spring.

The 42 councils that have altered or scrapped their schemes were given a total of £119.6 million across two tranches of funding in May and November 2020.

Craig Mackinlay, the chairman of the all-parliamentary group for Fair Fuel, “At a time of national financial stress, spending so much on these ludicrous projects does not seem to me to be a good use of money,” he told The Telegraph.

“An ageing population is not likely in any way, shape or form to start taking to the bicycle to do their shopping. To restrict tight, existing road networks in order to accommodate cycle lanes is madness.”

Tony Devenish, a Conservative London Assembly member, who last year successfully campaigned for the removal of the Kensington High Street cycle lane, said: “My Government is at fault to some extent, because they gave councils the power not to publicly consult for up to 18 months.

Advertisement

“You can’t just do these things to people. There has been absolute outcry from the Great British public - and that’s why so many councils have had to U-turn.”

The Department for Transport did not comment on the Telegraph’s findings.