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

[liquidindian]

In Croydon the leader of what is essentially the one group here, set up a petition to ask for ANPR access for local residents. They essentially won that concession.

Once they had that, this same person then spoke to a council meeting, where they quoted Sustrans warning that such concessions risked minimising the benefits of the scheme, so they should just scrap it.

You have to admire the balls, I suppose.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

But no one is kept out - only vehicles which do not have a reason to be there (residents, public transport, authorised trades, etc..). Do you object to this?

Yes, because it misses the point of what makes LTN’s safer.

 

[alex_]

Yes, because it misses the point of what makes LTN’s safer.

Pretty sure removing through traffic will make most areas safer.

 

[Rushy]

The gated reference came from elsewhere but I used it with the meaning of having an neighborhood where only those who live (or those working for the people who live) in it are allowed to enter. Everyone else is outside the 'gates' - unless they want to pay a fine of course.
This might be different to how you define a 'gated community' of course.
To me it smacks of those inside the gates get all the benefits (IE they can drive wherever and as often as they like with ease) and those outside get none. There is the divide. Does that make sense?

The gated reference is one you chose to adopt and justify. But what you have described is not what this is. Not one single person is excluded.

Anyone is allowed to enter. By foot. By car. By bike. By converted pedalo.

In fact even anyone with a legitimate reason to take a car in can take a car in, it would seem.

The only people being excluded are those who choose not to enter the zone without a car, even though they have no legitimate reason to be using a car in the zone.

As for those inside being able to drive wherever they want - the trial scheme is approx 500m x 1200m. The LTN I live in is even smaller 400m x 200m. And people with the freedom of access would be similarly excluded from all other zones. The idea that residents are going to be zooming around inside it all day seems like a nonsense.

Might you feel differently if this were being trialed on the St Matthews Estate LTN rather than in Fulham?

 

[Rushy]

Yes, because it misses the point of what makes LTN’s safer.

Vehicle movements aren't effectively stopped within the zone by either scheme. In my street people inexplicably still drive to Sainsburys despite it being 2-4x further and having to take the A23 and then negotiate jams on Effra Road. And they are not even driving less distance within the zone itself (just on a different part of it).

Even if the roads are safer due to reduced through traffic, they are by no means "safe". Personally I'd be happier with something like the TCPR or whatever it is called combined with something like a Homezone. Controlled driving within your own LTN / TCPR and access to and from all boundary roads for all residents within. Zones sized small so that it is hardly worth driving within them.

 

[edcraw]

One Lambeth showing an ambulance & police car going through an LTN filter as proof that they… can’t go through the filters!

 

[Rushy]

To be fair it's been well demonstrated that all it takes for anyone to go through a Lambeth LTN gate is a black bin bag. From initial enquiries, it sounds like no action is being taken on this.

I'm told that this is not an issue on the resident led TCPR because they have an array of cameras.

 

[thebackrow]

And people with the freedom of access would be similarly excluded from all other zones. The idea that residents are going to be zooming around inside it all day seems like a nonsense.

I don't believe that is true for the H&F schemes - ie borough residents can drive through all the ANPR filters in the borough.

 

[Rushy]

I don't believe that is true for the H&F schemes - ie borough residents can drive through all the ANPR filters in the borough.

You're right - that does seem to be the case on that one - although they would then be excluded from other neighbouring schemes (if that were the norm). Eligibility is easily adjustable. I think the key to it working is getting the zones right - not sure how relevant borough boundaries should really be.

 

[editor]

Historic answer to motorists encroaching on pedestrian space always seemed to be to take away pedestrian space. The bollards effectively taking about a third of the width of the busy pavements here on CHR are a particularly poor example. I wonder what driver behaviour necessitated these in the first place?

View attachment 309226

Nursery Road another one
View attachment 309229

The bumper sized bollards on CHL outside Brixton House are even more intrusive

 

[Crispy]

We have bollards on our street. It's one of the few round here with no parking restrictions, but there's only room to park on one side. Before the bollards, the pavement would fill up with cars on the other during the day, completely blocking people's front gates.

 

[Rushy]

We have bollards on our street. It's one of the few round here with no parking restrictions, but there's only room to park on one side. Before the bollards, the pavement would fill up with cars on the other during the day, completely blocking people's front gates.

Like nursery road.

 

[thebackrow]

The bumper sized bollards on CHL outside Brixton House are even more intrusive

If there are new ones (I can't recall) I'd guess they might be hostile vehicle mitigation, like Windrush Square.

We have bollards on our street. It's one of the few round here with no parking restrictions, but there's only room to park on one side. Before the bollards, the pavement would fill up with cars on the other during the day, completely blocking people's front gates.

I'm sure that's what it is - but the solution to illegal parking should be enforcement, not to take space from pedestrians.

 

[sleaterkinney]

The gated reference is one you chose to adopt and justify. But what you have described is not what this is. Not one single person is excluded.

Anyone is allowed to enter. By foot. By car. By bike. By converted pedalo.

In fact even anyone with a legitimate reason to take a car in can take a car in, it would seem.

The only people being excluded are those who choose not to enter the zone without a car, even though they have no legitimate reason to be using a car in the zone.

As for those inside being able to drive wherever they want - the trial scheme is approx 500m x 1200m. The LTN I live in is even smaller 400m x 200m. And people with the freedom of access would be similarly excluded from all other zones. The idea that residents are going to be zooming around inside it all day seems like a nonsense.

Might you feel differently if this were being trialed on the St Matthews Estate LTN rather than in Fulham?

Yes, if you have a legitimate reason to enter, you can, same as a gated community.

 

[sparkybird]

The gated reference is one you chose to adopt and justify. But what you have described is not what this is. Not one single person is excluded.

Anyone is allowed to enter. By foot. By car. By bike. By converted pedalo.

In fact even anyone with a legitimate reason to take a car in can take a car in, it would seem.

The only people being excluded are those who choose not to enter the zone without a car, even though they have no legitimate reason to be using a car in the zone.

As for those inside being able to drive wherever they want - the trial scheme is approx 500m x 1200m. The LTN I live in is even smaller 400m x 200m. And people with the freedom of access would be similarly excluded from all other zones. The idea that residents are going to be zooming around inside it all day seems like a nonsense.

Might you feel differently if this were being trialed on the St Matthews Estate LTN rather than in Fulham?

Clearly I've not explained well. I'm not justifying a gated community and maybe my idea of one is not the same as yours.
Converted pedalos or not, I'm not going to try again. It's ok to have different views isn't it?

 

[Rushy]

Clearly I've not explained well. I'm not justifying a gated community and maybe my idea of one is not the same as yours.
Converted pedalos or not, I'm not going to try again. It's ok to have different views isn't it?

As long as you accept the concept of open access by converted pedalo, I'm happy.

Just to explain my objection to the use of the term, "Gated community" is politically loaded reference to the types of segregated developments like those found in parts of the US and S Africa. They are what they say. They have gates and walls and security designed to segregate. They provide facilities (usually premium facilities) inside, such as shops and schools, so that no one needs to leave. And no one from outside can use those facilities.

Gated community - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

All a TCPR does is control whether you can come in and out using your own car. That's why it does not seem like an appropriate reference.

 

[Rushy]

Yes, if you have a legitimate reason to enter, you can, same as a gated community.

No. Not the same. In a "gated community" the majority of people are excluded from entering. In a TCPR absolutely no one is excluded. Anyone can enter and go anywhere and use any public facility - but they can only enter using their own car if they have a legitimate reason to have a car in there.

 

[Crispy]

If there are new ones (I can't recall) I'd guess they might be hostile vehicle mitigation, like Windrush Square.

I'm sure that's what it is - but the solution to illegal parking should be enforcement, not to take space from pedestrians.

Apparently enforcement wasn't enough. People would just accept the cost of an occasional ticket. And besides, a car with a parking ticket on the window blocks the pavement just as well as one without. I agree they make the pavement awkward, but it's a lesser evil IMO.

 

[sparkybird]

As long as you accept the concept of open access by converted pedalo, I'm happy.

Just to explain my objection to the use of the term, "Gated community" is politically loaded reference to the types of segregated developments like those found in parts of the US and S Africa. They are what they say. They have gates and walls and security designed to segregate. They provide facilities (usually premium facilities) inside, such as shops and schools, so that no one needs to leave. And no one from outside can use those facilities.

Gated community - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

All a TCPR does is control whether you can come in and out using your own car. That's why it does not seem like an appropriate reference.

Fair point. In the UK maybe gated development is a more accurate phrase?

BTW I was attempting to make reference to the anti LTNers use of gated. A true LTN seems less gated than a TCPR, so I can't understand why the latter would have more support from those against LTNs.
However logic doesn't always abound!

 

[Rushy]

Fair point. In the UK maybe gated development is a more accurate phrase?

BTW I was attempting to make reference to the anti LTNers use of gated. A true LTN seems less gated than a TCPR, so I can't understand why the latter would have more support from those against LTNs.
However logic doesn't always abound!

Yes it's a silly argument from anti LTNers and no less silly when it comes from LTNvangenlists. Gated is still private and exclusive - this is only about car access for people who don't need car access.

For me the biggest difference is sensible access to and from boundary roads around your zone (LTN or TCPR or whatever it's called). This affects some LTNs differently from others. As I've said from the very beginning, I'm not against the principle. I don't like the implementation or transparency. Things like the lack of competent enforcement just add to my feelings of disdain for the principle. I also have sympathy for arguments from people on boundary roads. The honking around my way from snarl ups in the morning and evening is unlike anything I recall before the pandemic.

It's worth remembering that most people are not hard pro or anti. In the stats bandied about on here when I was last paying attention the vast majority of the population seem to fall into the somewhat support, somewhat disagree, just don't know or care categories.

 

[sleaterkinney]

No. Not the same. In a "gated community" the majority of people are excluded from entering. In a TCPR absolutely no one is excluded. Anyone can enter and go anywhere and use any public facility - but they can only enter using their own car if they have a legitimate reason to have a car in there.

Ok, so you can enter on foot or pedalo.

My objection is that it gives rights to residents that other people don't have, so I think the comparison is a valid one.

 

[Rushy]

Ok, so you can enter on foot or pedalo.

My objection is that it gives rights to residents that other people don't have, so I think the comparison is a valid one.

So using that logic parking in residential streets should be equally available to all drivers? Not just local residents? And because it is not so, our streets are already comparable to a segregated gated community?

 

[sleaterkinney]

So using that logic parking in residential streets should be equally available to all drivers? Not just local residents? And because it is not so, our streets are already comparable to a segregated gated community?

If they made the parking in the whole LTN residents only it would have an effect like that.

 

[Rushy]

If they made the parking in the whole LTN residents only it would have an effect like that.

We already have parking zones. Only residents of those zones are allowed to park in them. Some of them are as small as a handful of streets.

Rights to residents which other people do not have. Exactly what you object to.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Meanwhile, in the north…



Fair play to them. The absolute state of some of the replies though

 

[sleaterkinney]

We already have parking zones. Only residents of those zones are allowed to park in them. Some of them are as small as a handful of streets.

Rights to residents which other people do not have. Exactly what you object to.

Anyone can park there, as long as you pay, it’s just cheaper for residents.

Parking charges

The hourly rate for parking depends on which Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) you are parked in. View a guide and map of CPZs in Lambeth.

beta.lambeth.gov.uk

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Aren’t LTNs open to residents anyway, as in you can enter the area just not go through the barriers? Are people getting that snippy about a couple more minutes to go round a corner?

I think blue badge drivers should have no restrictions and taxis transporting people with mobility difficulties, but other than those and emergency vehicles, no one else should really get priority.

Last taxi I took, the driver kept going on and on about LTNs and the implications for women’s safety, referring explicitly to Sarah Everard, when both my girls (almost 6 and 8) were in the taxi listening

He didn’t get a tip.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Are people getting that snippy about a couple more minutes to go round a corner?

Yep.

 

[Rushy]

Anyone can park there, as long as you pay, it’s just cheaper for residents.

Parking charges

The hourly rate for parking depends on which Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) you are parked in. View a guide and map of CPZs in Lambeth.

beta.lambeth.gov.uk

I'm afraid that is incorrect. Almost all bays are residents' bays - only residents can park in a residents bay. Unless they are provided with a visitors permit (but visitors permits are available exclusively to residents).

"Pay for" (previously "Pay and Display") do exist but are limited. (And - as you'll know if you've ever tried parking in one of the two on Tunstall Road, opposite the tube - somewhat unreliable as they are in very high demand).

Parking in CPZs is a right to residents which other people do not have. In fact even some residents have more rights than other. For instance - if you live in the central Brixton BIR zone you can park in the central BIR zone as well as anywhere in the larger BR zone which surrounds it. But if you live in the BR zone you cannot park in the central BIR zone. The whole purpose of this is to control demand for parking in the immediate central area where everyone wants to park. It stops residents of the surrounding BR zone driving unnecessarily into central Brixton to go shopping when they could just walk. Parking in that area is a right reserved only for residents of a handful of roads in central Brixton.

Your position is that giving rights to residents which others do not have is comparable to a gated / segregated community. But this is already going on - there are even stratifications of rights amongst residents. Yet this does not segregate the community. It is not a gated community.

Absolutely no one is excluded from a TCPR - unless they insist on bringing a car with them without having a valid reason to do so. The can apply for access via an app, just like "pay for" parking - only it is free.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Yep.

I guess maybe it's an issue if they're driving that route multiple times a day, but who apart from tradesmen and people who really can't use other forms of transport (rather than finding them a bit more inconvenient) really needs to do that?

Sadly it is hard to get a sense of whether things like LTNs are changing driving behaviours. I'm sure they probably are for some people but they seem to be the quieter ones!