Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

"CPZ style consultations" is how Ealing council described them. They refer to the new govt guidelines but... seem to have just ignored them?

I don't know how much effort was made to elicit responses, but I do know that when Croydon ran a consultation on the Upper Norwood LTN, the overwhelming majority of residents didn't respond, and those that did respond in no way reflected the demographics of the area.

Anyone who's worked in customer services can see the problem with putting this to a simple vote straight away.
 
Good support from Lambeth councillors. 98 per cent of schools on London have illegal air pollution, we need drastic action not delay & keeping the status quo.

 
liquidindian said:
"CPZ style consultations" is how Ealing council described them. They refer to the new govt guidelines but... seem to have just ignored them?

I don't know how much effort was made to elicit responses, but I do know that when Croydon ran a consultation on the Upper Norwood LTN, the overwhelming majority of residents didn't respond, and those that did respond in no way reflected the demographics of the area.

Anyone who's worked in customer services can see the problem with putting this to a simple vote straight away.
Click to expand...

Support from respondents is just one part of consultations and up to councils to weigh up the merits of concerns (a general dislike of the schemes seems to be the top concern for most here). Ealing have made it the absolute focus and the reports mostly don’t even attempt to explain the monitoring. Very poor.
 
You can look at the reports for each LTN at the bottom of this page.

There's a fairly consistent pattern in what the main concerns of objectors are: air pollution, congestion, and access being made more difficult and journeys being made longer.

I looked at the reports for the seven LTNs that are not "supported by residents". Four of them show a clear decrease in traffic not only within the LTN but on the boundary roads too. One shows a clear decrease within, and a very marginal (2%) increase on boundary roads. Then there are two (Acton central and Bowes Road) that show increases on boundary roads. One of these appears to be complicated by a new housing development having been built.

The reports also show measurements of congestion (via bus journey times) and air pollution (although they seem to state it's raw data that hasn't been corrected). In pretty much all of them, there's little or no change to the bus times, and the recorded air pollution appears to have decreased.

If Ealing decides to throw in the towel on these schemes then at least they provide additional data that confirms what we already know - that generally, LTN type interventions reduce traffic within the areas, and they generally do not cause significant increases in traffic volume or congestion on boundary roads. And none of these reports provide any evidence that air pollution is worsened. They also show that despite all this, the primary objections are from people claiming to be worried about air pollution and congestion.
 
This Twitter thread is a worthwhile analysis of the Ealing thing -



I'm not sure why chowce5382 is so animated about it - it doesn't seem to have anything to do with "protecting the rights of an individual and a protected group in general" which I thought was his only interest in LTNs. You'd hope public policy decisions were made on the basis of evidence, which seems to show in Ealing that the LTNs were doing what they were meant to do.
 
thebackrow said:
This Twitter thread is a worthwhile analysis of the Ealing thing -



I'm not sure why chowce5382 is so animated about it - it doesn't seem to have anything to do with "protecting the rights of an individual and a protected group in general" which I thought was his only interest in LTNs. You'd hope public policy decisions were made on the basis of evidence, which seems to show in Ealing that the LTNs were doing what they were meant to do.
Click to expand...

Not exactly animated. Saw it so thought I’d post it. Then just took a screen shot. Didn’t even comment to any great extent. My position is, and has always been, about the rights under the act. Slightly worried that you think this implies that I am “so animated” 😊. The bloke who wrote those racist tweets, now he was very animated when he wrote them. Real heart on sleeve saying what he thought type stuff, wouldn’t you say…
 
chowce5382 said:
Not exactly animated. Saw it so thought I’d post it. Then just took a screen shot. Didn’t even comment to any great extent. My position is, and has always been, about the rights under the act. Slightly worried that you think this implies that I am “so animated” 😊. The bloke who wrote those racist tweets, now he was very animated when he wrote them. Real heart on sleeve saying what he thought type stuff, wouldn’t you say…
Click to expand...
It is odd that every time you get challenged on the weaknesses or inconsistencies in your position you bring up the same old dirt as if it's in any way relevant. Based on what someone posted here it seems you've some pretty questionable views but while they might show you're a bigoted arsehole I can't see that they've got anything to do with your position on transport schemes.
 
thebackrow said:
It is odd that every time you get challenged on the weaknesses or inconsistencies in your position you bring up the same old dirt as if it's in any way relevant. Based on what someone posted here it seems you've some pretty questionable views but while they might show you're a bigoted arsehole I can't see that they've got anything to do with your position on transport schemes.
Click to expand...
I’ve said almost nothing on these consultations, in fact I just posted the original link with no commentary. I was just giving you an example of someone being animated. The big difference between retweeting something and actually tweeting it is huge, especially given the tweets I referred to were about…transport from a person who was involved in…transport. The person who dragged up that retweet also jokes about wife beating in tweets he writes. Might as well leave it there. As I said, it haven’t commented on this properly yet so not sure how you know what my position on this consultation is yet.

For further example, your response above is a good example of someone getting animated. Hope that helps for future reference.
 
Last edited:
liquidindian said:
Correct, it is okay then.
Click to expand...
Well, let’s just disagree on that. I’ve done a some pro Bono work with abused women and don’t think it’s a subject that translates into flippant comments that well. Never mind, back to consultation.
If it is only 6.7% then it probably needs to be re-run as any consultation needs to try and include as much of the community as possible.
 
chowce5382 said:
Well, let’s just disagree on that. I’ve done a some pro Bono work with abused women and don’t think it’s a subject that translates into flippant comments that well. Never mind, back to consultation.
If it is only 6.7% then it probably needs to be re-run as any consultation needs to try and include as much of the community as possible.
Click to expand...
Based on the evidence it looks like Ealing have a good case to make the schemes permanent as they seem to have achieved their objectives. Consultations are not referendums and the fact that a small number of people don't like the change (and many of their justifications for disliking it appear to be disproved by the evidence gathered) should not lead to them being pulling them out.

It's always useful to post some interpretation when posting a link so that people understand what you're taking from it - otherwise people will make assumptions. Just posting some context free %ages could have been taken to show that you thought those figures were the most important takeaway from it.
 
chowce5382 said:
Well, let’s just disagree on that. I’ve done a some pro Bono work with abused women and don’t think it’s a subject that translates into flippant comments that well.
Click to expand...
Nah, I'm not letting you off with that. I (slightly mis)quoted a very famous example of a loaded question in answer to a loaded question. Shove your concern trolling up your arse.
 
sleaterkinney said:
Any chance of you backing up this statement chowce5382 ?
Click to expand...
If a body decides to change routes and makes it harder for traffic to go down certain roads and therefore prescribes that the traffic most go down x or y road and that leads to higher pollution and/or traffic density then there was a conscious decision by that body to make that decision. I’m not saying that they are trying to target a specific class or group of people but that it is a consequence of an action. As such it becomes deliberate especially if no mitigation’s are out in place. It’s not a comment on this council specifically but more generally about the decision process and saying that those bodies must be aware of the resultant consequences of actions, both intended and unintended
 
chowce5382 said:
If a body decides to change routes and makes it harder for traffic to go down certain roads and therefore prescribes that the traffic most go down x or y road and that leads to higher pollution and/or traffic density then there was a conscious decision by that body to make that decision. I’m not saying that they are trying to target a specific class or group of people but that it is a consequence of an action. As such it becomes deliberate especially if no mitigation’s are out in place. It’s not a comment on this council specifically but more generally about the decision process and saying that those bodies must be aware of the resultant consequences of actions, both intended and unintended
Click to expand...

I’m loathed to quote the prime minister again but he’s bang on the money here:

"I know many people think that cycling and walking schemes simply increase car traffic on other roads.

"But there is now increasing evidence that they do not.

"We sometimes think of traffic as like water: if you block a stream in one place, it will find the next easiest way.

"Of course some journeys by car are essential, but traffic is not a force of nature. It is a product of people’s choices. If you make it easier and safer to walk and cycle, more people choose to walk and cycle instead of driving, and the traffic falls overall."
 
Lambeth
The stated aims of the Lambeth Transport Strategy, of which LTNs are a part - is pretty clear -
"We are radically reshaping our borough’s transport to clean up our toxic air, make it safer to walk and cycle and reduce emissions."
www.lambeth.gov.uk

Transport Strategy

www.lambeth.gov.uk www.lambeth.gov.uk

London

The Mayor's Transport Strategy

The Mayor's Transport Strategy lays out Mayor Sadiq Khan's vision for transport in London
tfl.gov.uk tfl.gov.uk
"At its heart is a bold aim for 80% of all trips in London to be made on foot, by cycle or using public transport by 2041.

Those are just top line statements from the front page of what came back on a search for the transport strategy. Obviously if you fundamentally disagree that any trips by car can be taken by any other means (which all the evidence contradicts) then yes, maybe you're going to believe that pollution is going to increase but ultimately pollution is not restricted to the street a vehicle is on - if you want to improve the air across London then you need to reduce motor vehicle use. LTNs enable people to choose other ways to travel.
 
chowce5382 said:
If a body decides to change routes and makes it harder for traffic to go down certain roads and therefore prescribes that the traffic most go down x or y road and that leads to higher pollution and/or traffic density then there was a conscious decision by that body to make that decision. I’m not saying that they are trying to target a specific class or group of people but that it is a consequence of an action. As such it becomes deliberate especially if no mitigation’s are out in place. It’s not a comment on this council specifically but more generally about the decision process and saying that those bodies must be aware of the resultant consequences of actions, both intended and unintended
Click to expand...
No, I'm not asking what you think might happen.

You have said that the council have been clear that there would be extra traffic/pollution, where did they make this statement?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
Cyclist killed in Brixton
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
T & P
T & P
blameless77
After work pint in Brixton?
Replies
12
Views
746
editor
editor
editor
It's a grim Christmas around Brixton: no lights, no tree and no funfair
Replies
1
Views
730
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
editor
Coronation (and anti Coronation events this weekend in and around Brixton
Replies
5
Views
795
Gramsci
Gramsci
editor
Homophobia in Brixton
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Tulster218
T
Back
Top Bottom