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

[teuchter]

Yup, and my worry was that the congestion caused would make it harder for disabled people to get around to appointments and I knew how that would impact them.

Can you give me any examples of where significant congestion is currently being experienced - and where you think it's worse than it would have been without the LTNs? I guess in relation to the railton or Ferndale ones?

I just haven't seen it anywhere recently. I'm in Herne hill just now, and traffic is not even really backing up on any of the roads leading to the main junction. I know it's not rush hour but Herne hill (pre Covid and LTN) was always one of the bad spots for traffic.

 

[chowce5382]

Are you talking about a different bit of text from the one posted by liquidindian above?

Because I can't match what you're saying with that text at all.

I’m focusing on the sentence which starts “this is particular priority as disabled people”

Having looked at a considerable number of EQIAs both professionally otherwise, you can’t take overarching statements which include all of the group you are taking about and then use a study which only applies to a very small proportion on that group. You also shouldn’t just put all people in that group together and treat them the same. As I mentioned, it was the first thing which looked at and then went down the road on the Equalities Act rather than whether LTNs were doing what they said they would do.

 

[chowce5382]

And? Not really relevant to the point being made.

Ditto.

Well, quite. Do you think people with mobility issues find accessing active travel easier, or harder?

See above. I can see why you don't want to dwell on it.


The thing is, the EQIA does go on to talk about potential negative consequences re mobility, but it's under "age" rather than "disability". I suppose this is understandable as car ownership tends to increase with age, but disabled people are way less likely to own a car.

On your last paragraph, each different vulnerable group has its own section. The bit which says negative on age only applies to age and not the other vulnerable and protected groups under the EA. The very fact that it’s says that there may be negative consequences for the elderly means that the lack of that finding in the section on disability means that they don’t find any negatives consequences for disabled people. That’s how these things work. You take each group in turn and show whether the impacts will be positive or negative (or neutral N/A). You can’t say that, because they said it was negative for the elderly that this applies to the different section on disabled people.

 

[teuchter]

I’m focusing on the sentence which starts “this is particular priority as disabled people”

Having looked at a considerable number of EQIAs both professionally otherwise, you can’t take overarching statements which include all of the group you are taking about and then use a study which only applies to a very small proportion on that group. You also shouldn’t just put all people in that group together and treat them the same. As I mentioned, it was the first thing which looked at and then went down the road on the Equalities Act rather than whether LTNs were doing what they said they would do.

But previously you were making it out like it was saying that no disabled people would suffer adverse effects from the LTNs. That there would only be positive effects, for all disabled people.

But as liquidindian points out, that's not what this text is about. It's addressing the question of whether those with disabilities tend to find out hard to access certain types of transport. Different question. The example in their footnote is not controversial in that context.

 

[chowce5382]

But previously you were making it out like it was saying that no disabled people would suffer adverse effects from the LTNs. That there would only be positive effects, for all disabled people.

But as liquidindian points out, that's not what this text is about. It's addressing the question of whether those with disabilities tend to find out hard to access certain types of transport. Different question. The example in their footnote is not controversial in that context.

Look at the top of the text. The finding states that the implementation will be positive. That is the finding of the authors. The text is saying the peope with disabilities tend to find it hard to access certian types of transport. As this, and other EQIAs relate to implementing the LTNs the positive finding is saying that the implementation of LTNs will be positive for disabled people. Not positive and negative but positive.
That’s how these documents work. You state your findings at the top in the section relating to the relevant protected group and then you effectively show your workings as to how you got there.

 

[liquidindian]

But you're saying that Lambeth looked at one study and decided LTNs were good, when the study was to support a single statement on access to active travel and the document wasn't focused on LTNs but the whole transport plan.

I understand how the document works, it's fairly self-evident. And it's clear you do too. So please stop misrepresenting it.

 

[teuchter]

Look at the top of the text. The finding states that the implementation will be positive. That is the finding of the authors. The text is saying the peope with disabilities tend to find it hard to access certian types of transport. As this, and other EQIAs relate to implementing the LTNs the positive finding is saying that the implementation of LTNs will be positive for disabled people. Not positive and negative but positive.
That’s how these documents work. You state your findings at the top in the section relating to the relevant protected group and then you effectively show your workings as to how you got there.

So, if one of these reports states positive or negative for a certain group ... The conventional reading of that is that "every single element of this broad ranging policy will lead to only positive outcomes for every single member of the group"?

I'd have thought it's more along the lines of "on balance it has a net positive effect". That would seem more in accordance with how the real world and real policy making works.

 

[chowce5382]

But you're saying that Lambeth looked at one study and decided LTNs were good, when the study was to support a single statement on access to active travel and the document wasn't focused on LTNs but the whole transport plan.

I understand how the document works, it's fairly self-evident. And it's clear you do too. So please stop misrepresenting it.

Which formed the basis for the EQIA for every single LTN. This was argued in court and was once of the points made by their QC, that there was a direct link through from the TP through to the decision made to implement the LTNs and that therefore that work for the impact assessment had been done which was why they didn’t need to do it for each individual LTN.

 

[liquidindian]

This was argued in court

This is the case you lost, aye?

 

[edcraw]

Can you give me any examples of where significant congestion is currently being experienced - and where you think it's worse than it would have been without the LTNs? I guess in relation to the railton or Ferndale ones?

I just haven't seen it anywhere recently. I'm in Herne hill just now, and traffic is not even really backing up on any of the roads leading to the main junction. I know it's not rush hour but Herne hill (pre Covid and LTN) was always one of the bad spots for traffic.

This is the main point really - they haven’t led to any huge increase in congestion, everyone can see this, so all else is moot except if you are really pissed of about your car journey taking a few minutes longer.

 

[chowce5382]

So, if one of these reports states positive or negative for a certain group ... The conventional reading of that is that "every single element of this broad ranging policy will lead to only positive outcomes for every single member of the group"?

I'd have thought it's more along the lines of "on balance it has a net positive effect". That would seem more in accordance with how the real world and real policy making works.

But you would expect how they got to the net impact. There are these positives, however there are these negatives which will need to be mitigated with respect to these different sub-sets if disabled people to ensure that are not unduly impacted. With the correct mitigations in place we then find that, on the balance, the impact will be net positive overall

 

[Jeanette Moo]

And? Not really relevant to the point being made.

Ditto.

Well, quite. Do you think people with mobility issues find accessing active travel easier, or harder?

See above. I can see why you don't want to dwell on it.


The thing is, the EQIA does go on to talk about potential negative consequences re mobility, but it's under "age" rather than "disability". I suppose this is understandable as car ownership tends to increase with age, but disabled people are way less likely to own a car.

Honestly im probably the one having the most trouble keeping up but even I can see that a report on people with learning difficulties, in the north of England, does not refer to all disabled people and does not mean that the LTNs would have only a positive affect on disabled people.

These are supposed to be 'all over the UK' and 'actually planned for some time'. Also many years to prepare since LJ....and this is the best Lambeth can come up with? You'd think this would be step 1. 'OK we wanna do these things how will they impact people'

Sounds like someone was hitting copy and paste from a form relating removing a railing or such.

 

[edcraw]

This is the main point really - they haven’t led to any huge increase in congestion, everyone can see this, so all else is moot except if you are really pissed of about your car journey taking a few minutes longer.

chowce5382 & Gramsci - you both argue about the process byt which they were bought in which is a fair argument and much more palatable & believable than any of the other arguments, but for them to be made permanent they will need to be fully consulted on. I hope if & when this happens (& it might be before the appeal is heard) it will be enough for you both to accept them then.

 

[liquidindian]

a report on people with learning difficulties, in the north of England, does not refer to all disabled people and does not mean that the LTNs would

The report does not say that LTNs have only a positive effect on disabled people. The statement where the report is referred to as a footnote does not say that LTNs have only a positive effect on disabled people. This is a misrepresentation by chowce5382 and the fact that you think that means that it's doing it's job. Maybe he hoped no one would actually check.

 

[teuchter]

But you would expect how they got to the net impact. There are these positives, however there are these negatives which will need to be mitigated with respect to these different sub-sets if disabled people to ensure that are not unduly impacted. With the correct mitigations in place we then find that, on the balance, the impact will be net positive overall

Ok. Maybe I would like to see it go into a bit more detail too. But my understanding is that the judge decided it was ok to monitor the detailed impacts of specific measures on a rolling basis.

But in any case, what you said was:

"The finding in the EQIA said that ltns would be positive for all disabled people."

Well - no it did not.

 

[teuchter]

Honestly im probably the one having the most trouble keeping up but even I can see that a report on people with learning difficulties, in the north of England, does not refer to all disabled people and does not mean that the LTNs would have only a positive affect on disabled people.

These are supposed to be 'all over the UK' and 'actually planned for some time'. Also many years to prepare since LJ....and this is the best Lambeth can come up with? You'd think this would be step 1. 'OK we wanna do these things how will they impact people'

Sounds like someone was hitting copy and paste from a form relating removing a railing or such.

TfL have a fairly extensive bunch of documents providing an evidence base that are publicly accessible. Have you looked at them? As I understand it, this is the evidence base for LTNs as proposed in London, and it's there for councils to refer to and use. This has been prepared over years. Remember that this was initially a TfL initiative - before the unexpected intervention from central govt.

It's not like this has all appeared out of the blue and no-one has thought through these problems before. Note that the basis of chowce5382 's objections seems to be all around congestion. The LTNs are implemented in the expectation that they do not significantly increase congestion on surrounding roads once bedded in. And people have already spent decades arguing about this. The real world evidence is there if a bit patchy. It's patchy partly because it's so hard to get these things implemented. I hope that in time, all the stuff that has been put in over the past year or two will add to that evidence.

 

[chowce5382]

The

Ok. Maybe I would like to see it go into a bit more detail too. But my understanding is that the judge decided it was ok to monitor the detailed impacts of specific measures on a rolling basis.

But in any case, what you said was:

"The finding in the EQIA said that ltns would be positive for all disabled people."

Well - no it did not.

This section relates to disabled people.
The finding of the author is that the impact of implementing the road changes would be Positive (as we can see from the finding at the top).
So, how do we know it will be positive (rather than positive and negative). We look at the text which refers to current issues in the road network and how that impacts disabled people. That sentence is then linked to a study.
The only study I see relates to one sub-set and not any others. There are no other studies. The text is referring to issues currently or previously faced (hence the use of an historical study to back up that point). The positive finding is saying that these issues will be alleviated by the LTN.
There is nothing in legislation or case law which says that you can substitute undertaking the initial impact assessment with a rolling assessment at a later date. The reason being is that if you don’t do the work upfront then you could be curtailing the rights of various groups without having thought about them.

 

[teuchter]

This section relates to disabled people.
The finding of the author is that the impact of implementing the road changes would be Positive (as we can see from the finding at the top).

No it isn't. It's about the transport strategy in general. Not about road changes.

 

[chowce5382]

No it isn't. It's about the transport strategy in general. Not about road changes.

Which contemplates road changes at its core. This is exactly what Lambeth said at the case. All the work was effectively done by the Transport Strategy plan and so doesn’t need to be replicated. This is the exact point (alongside others) which the judge gave appeal on.

 

[thebackrow]

Which contemplates road changes at its core. This is exactly what Lambeth said at the case. All the work was effectively done by the Transport Strategy plan and so doesn’t need to be replicated. This is the exact point (alongside others) which the judge gave appeal on.

So what still puzzles me is what the appeal hopes to achieve. There are now EQIAs for each individual scheme - you might not think they are good enough, or agree with their findings, but those are not questions that would covered by the appeal.

As noted here - it appears that if there is a negative impact on some disabled people doesn't mean that the council have failed in their duty, so long as they understand what those impacts are.

The equalities act itself is a process duty, not an outcome duty - which this case recognises. If something disadvantages a protected group the LA can still do it, they just have to understand the impact. So if the council believes there is a need to reduce traffic volumes overall, or just through one neighbourhood, in order to improve air quality and reduce carbon emissions, they can do so even if it does impact on disabled people who drive.

so at best your appeal would establish that in future Lambeth, and other councils, would not be able to rely on an overarching EQIA for their transport strategy. it's not going to stop more LTNs being implemented, to remove the current schemes, or even lead to them being modified as that's not what is being determined.

 

[Gramsci]

chowce5382 & Gramsci - you both argue about the process byt which they were bought in which is a fair argument and much more palatable & believable than any of the other arguments, but for them to be made permanent they will need to be fully consulted on. I hope if & when this happens (& it might be before the appeal is heard) it will be enough for you both to accept them then.

I don't see what the point of this post is.

 

[Gramsci]

chowce5382 & Gramsci - you both argue about the process byt which they were bought in which is a fair argument and much more palatable & believable than any of the other arguments, but for them to be made permanent they will need to be fully consulted on. I hope if & when this happens (& it might be before the appeal is heard) it will be enough for you both to accept them then.

Your saying in same post that they need to be fully consulted on and also saying they will be made permanent.

 

[Gramsci]

Which formed the basis for the EQIA for every single LTN. This was argued in court and was once of the points made by their QC, that there was a direct link through from the TP through to the decision made to implement the LTNs and that therefore that work for the impact assessment had been done which was why they didn’t need to do it for each individual LTN.

I noticed that. That did surprise me. Its like due to speed that the LTNs were put in place a generic template EQIA was made.

I can see that the Judge thought pandemic meant he needed to give Lambeth leeway.

But in his judgement he's also saying that using rolling EQIA is done at Lambeth's peril.

Is this one issue that needs clarification in possible appeal? Use of rolling EQIA?

 

[chowce5382]

I noticed that. That did surprise me. Its like due to speed that the LTNs were put in place a generic template EQIA was made.

I can see that the Judge thought pandemic meant he needed to give Lambeth leeway.

But in his judgement he's also saying that using rolling EQIA is done at Lambeth's peril.

Is this one issue that needs clarification in possible appeal? Use of rolling EQIA?

Yes, I haven't seen the concept of a rolling EQIA used before, either in legislation or case law. Very much up to the appeal courts though in terms of what they decide to focus on

 

[edcraw]

Your saying in same post that they need to be fully consulted on and also saying they will be made permanent.

For them to be made permenant they need to go through consultation.

The point of the post is surely if and when they go through consultation you and chowce5382 will have what you want, I can't see why waiting a few months isn't possible. They just aren't causing the carnage everyone claims.

 

[BakeRecords]

The concept of a 'rolling' EIA seems reasonable to me. The impact of a policy change may be unknown when designing the policy. The evidence doesn't necessarily exist, and the only way to gather that evidence is to pilot the change and evaluate its impact.

 

[teuchter]

The

This section relates to disabled people.
The finding of the author is that the impact of implementing the road changes would be Positive (as we can see from the finding at the top).
So, how do we know it will be positive (rather than positive and negative). We look at the text which refers to current issues in the road network and how that impacts disabled people. That sentence is then linked to a study.
The only study I see relates to one sub-set and not any others. There are no other studies. The text is referring to issues currently or previously faced (hence the use of an historical study to back up that point). The positive finding is saying that these issues will be alleviated by the LTN.
There is nothing in legislation or case law which says that you can substitute undertaking the initial impact assessment with a rolling assessment at a later date. The reason being is that if you don’t do the work upfront then you could be curtailing the rights of various groups without having thought about them.

Anyone can look at the ruling here and decide for themselves to what extent they agree with the above account of things.

Section 30 onwards (under "facts") sets out the various considerations that were given - not just the TSIP but in various documents and reports that were produced after that. I don't think it's true to imply that throughout the process, all types of disabilities were umped together, nor is it true to imply that potential negative effects were never taken into account. For example, section 51 quotes from a "draft EQIA" produced in August 2020 prior to the Railton LTN being implemented, and specifically looking at its potential impacts. The bit of tet quoted in the judge's ruling is:

"Much of current public realm / road network has the effect of excluding disabled people and the proposal seeks to address this by creating a more inclusive street environment. Reducing road danger also has the potential to enable more people to participate in active travel. For example, cycles can improve mobility and access for disabled people, many of whom do not have access to motor vehicles. For those that do have access to a car, in some cases journey times may be increased for some trips. All areas will remain accessible, however, and reduced traffic on the local streets is expected to result in a safer, less stressful and more convenient trip making for local journeys by car for those that need to drive."

The sequence of events, and multiple documents and reports, involved in this whole story is pretty complex. In fact the court ruling has done a lot of hard work in pulling everything together in a comprehensible summary. I would recommend anyone who feels completely confused about everything, and who wants to try and understand it, to read the ruling, particularly the "facts" bit from section 30 onwards. I would pay more attention to that than what anyone on here writes.

Maybe I should thank the funders of the court action for helping make this rather useful document appear.

 

[liquidindian]

Honestly im probably the one having the most trouble keeping up

At the risk of being annoying, let me lay it all out.

• chowce5382 said I saw an EQIA which was done pre-Covid and it said LTNs would be positive for all disabled people. It was linked to a study but the study only looked at people with mild to moderate learning difficulties. This makes it sound like the study led Lambeth council to say LTNs could only be positive for disabled people. But this isn't true.
• The EQIA wasn't about just LTNs, but about a transport plan that would encourage more active travel. It includes things like longer times to cross the road, step free access to stations, and electric vehicles.
• Here are two sentences from the EQIA on disability: "The strategy includes targeted services and campaigns to increase participation in sustainable travel by people with disabilities, including bus ridership and inclusive cycling initiatives. This is a particular priority as disabled people may suffer from higher mortality rates than the general population, potentially reflectiing exclusion from active travel / lifestyles"
• Inactivity means, generally speaking, people die more quickly and they suffer from more chronic diseases like diabetes and heart disease. Getting more people to make activity like walking and cycling part of their everyday lives is good! This whole "active travel" thing isn't just about congestion and pollution. In fact some people (like me) think it's the most important thing. Careful or I'll get on my soapbox about this.
• All the study does is back up the point that disabled people can find it difficult to access active travel. Even disabilities that do not limit mobility can have an impact. It's not used for anything beyond that. Just that simple, uncontroversial, fairly obvious (I think) point.
• It does not draw a direct line between the experiences of the subjects of this research and the impact of LTNs on people.
• This doesn't mean that the EQIA can't be criticised at all. For example it recognises how people with mobility issues might be affected but under the topic of "age" rather than "disability". I personally think it should be addressed as part of both but I understand the thinking--there is also research referenced that shows that disabled people tend not to own cars, and older people with mobility issues do tend to own cars
• I'm labouring the point a bit but I think this is important because it's not always easy to look stuff up. If someone says "Lambeth council did this in a 2019 equality assessment" it's easy to accept it. If we're being kind chowce5382 may have skimmed the report and misunderstood this... but it's been explained a couple of times and he keeps doubling down.

(Edit: or just read the post above and ignore this one tbh)

 

[teuchter]

Lambeth don't help themselves by having a totally impenetrable website which makes it very difficult to track down reports etc and link them to a timescale.

 

[sleaterkinney]

These are supposed to be 'all over the UK' and 'actually planned for some time'. Also many years to prepare since LJ....and this is the best Lambeth can come up with? You'd think this would be step 1. 'OK we wanna do these things how will they impact people'

Sounds like someone was hitting copy and paste from a form relating removing a railing or such.

They are actually all over Lambeth already, for example Railton rd used to come out at the bridge.
Nobody notices because they have had time to bed in. The mistake Lambeth made was trying to present this as a "new" thing.