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

[Agent Sparrow]

If I was road dictator for a year, I'd put in some changes that would be much more likely to get some drivers' knickers in a twist
Would anyone like to hear?

 

[Winot]

I for one welcome our Sparrow overlords.

 

[edcraw]

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

It’s also that they can no longer rat run on other streets. Most drivers seem not to give a shit about how their actions impact on others hence the rise in the number of stupidly sized SUVs.

 

[sleaterkinney]

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.

The CPZs don’t cover the whole area though, a non resident can come and park somewhere in Brixton, even without a valid reason to do so, with a TCPR they couldn’t do that, they’re not the same thing at all.

 

[Rushy]

The CPZs don’t cover the whole area though, a non resident can come and park somewhere in Brixton

Most of Lambeth north of Brockwell Park - including most of Brixton - is covered by CPZs. They certainly cover a lot more area than the LTNs do.

By that argument you could say that it does not matter that people can't drive into the TCPR because they can still drive around most of Fulham?

a non resident can come and park somewhere in Brixton, even without a valid reason to do so, with a TCPR they could not do that

And you feel that every driver's right to drive anywhere they wish without any reason needs to be preserved at all costs?


I'm happy to agree that TCPRs - like LTNs - have their issues. But we already live with a situation where residents have some rights over non residents simply on account of being resident. And as I've shown, some residents even have unequal rights over other residents - in order to solve specific traffic problems. And the world has not fallen apart.

I don't believe that you genuinely think a TCPR bears comparison to a segregated or gated community.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Most of Lambeth north of Brockwell Park - including most of Brixton - is covered by CPZs. They certainly cover a lot more area than the LTNs do.

By that argument you could say that it does not matter that people can't drive into the TCPR because they can still drive around most of Fulham?


And you feel that every driver's right to drive anywhere they wish without any reason needs to be preserved at all costs?


I'm happy to agree that TCPRs - like LTNs - have their issues. But we already live with a situation where residents have some rights over non residents simply on account of being resident. And as I've shown, some residents even have unequal rights over other residents - in order to solve specific traffic problems. And the world has not fallen apart.

I don't believe that you genuinely think a TCPR bears comparison to a segregated or gated community.

You’ve not shown anything, you’ve argued that a different thing doesn’t have the effect of what I was saying this would.

 

[Rushy]

You’ve not shown anything, you’ve argued that a different thing doesn’t have the effect of what I was saying this would.

You argued:

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

My intention was to show that giving specific vehicular rights to residents over non-residents (and indeed over other residents) in order to manage car use in a particular zone is already well established and accepted throughout London. I have never heard anyone argue that this results in anything like a segregated or gated community.

Until now. Fair enough. I'm surprised but I acknowledge your opinion.

 

[sleaterkinney]

You argued:


My intention was to show that giving specific vehicular rights to residents over non-residents (and indeed over other residents) in order to manage car use in a particular zone is already well established and accepted throughout London. I have never heard anyone argue that this results in anything like a segregated or gated community.

Until now. Fair enough. I'm surprised but I acknowledge your opinion.

You know what a strawman is, right?

 

[thebackrow]

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.

Saw these at the weekend. Definitely hostile vehicle stuff so they have to be big and ugly. At least they're on the section where the pavement is wide and there is space to gather - it's the few by the market that are really in the way where the pavement is narrow.

 

[thebackrow]

Ferndale consultation is now live


and there is traffic monitoring data
Traffic

It’s still congested at times, new rush hours at various times including for Ubers at the weekends. Noise and arguments still happening - the increased traffic on Ferndale Road West as the only entry/exit is not nice for peoples mental health.

Ferndale Road is interesting - the eastern half has a big reduction in traffic and theres an increase on the western end. But it's only an extra 300 cars a day so the total daily cars is less than 1200. That's still a very quiet road - the eastern half previously had over 3000 per day. So surely comes back to removing some parking to enable vehicles to pass each other more easily, which never seems to get a response from those complaining.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I think we all know what the reaction to “remove parking” would be.

 

[liquidindian]

I think we all know what the reaction to “remove parking” would be.

That's mostly because the responses to anything from some looks like it was put together by a series of preprogrammed macro key presses.

 

[thebackrow]

That's mostly because the responses to anything from some looks like it was put together by a series of preprogrammed macro key presses.

I really hope he does cut and paste rather than typing it out every time.

 

[Collateral Dama]

Ferndale consultation is now live


and there is traffic monitoring data
Traffic



Ferndale Road is interesting - the eastern half has a big reduction in traffic and theres an increase on the western end. But it's only an extra 300 cars a day so the total daily cars is less than 1200. That's still a very quiet road - the eastern half previously had over 3000 per day. So surely comes back to removing some parking to enable vehicles to pass each other more easily, which never seems to get a response from those complaining.
View attachment 310134

You say that it’s “only an extra 300 cars a day” and “still a very quiet road”. If that’s so then why do they need to put in passing spaces for the first time ever? The traffic on Ferndale Road West is incessant now. It used to be quiet for much of the day and almost all of the night. It’s now the only way into or out of a giant cul-de-sac housing maybe 2,000 people, three churches, some big estates, a very popular pub. Oh, and it’s also the Lambeth Healthy Route, and Lambeth Council is putting all the traffic on to its Healthy Route, which is also the road that most pedestrians use between Brixton and Clapham. Lambeth‘s numbers will require examination. They were taken at a strange time (ie, lockdowns and fuel shortage — and their ”normalisation” of the baseline). Besides which, would you want to have a passing space put in front of your house, with idling engines, maybe music and tooting horns telling other cars to come on or stay put? The passing areas also aren’t going to work. This is the most narrow part of Ferndale Road and it’s never been nice to cycle on when there’s an oncoming or overtaking car, and now there’s a lot more of them, thanks to the LTN.

 

[thebackrow]

You say that it’s “only an extra 300 cars a day” and “still a very quiet road”. If that’s so then why do they need to put in passing spaces for the first time ever? The traffic on Ferndale Road West is incessant now. It used to be quiet for much of the day and almost all of the night. It’s now the only way into or out of a giant cul-de-sac housing maybe 2,000 people, three churches, some big estates, a very popular pub.

So what are you proposing? If you think that the sub 1500 vehicles per day on Ferndale West is too high for a Healthy Route you surely can't be suggesting reopening the rat runs as Ferndale East and Concanon used to be more than twice that.

As far as I can work out the normalisation increases the number above what was counted (to adjust for any impact of the pandemic). The notes seem to say they think this has overstated the HGV and motorbike traffic as those types of vehicle traffic haven't reduced)

 

[sparkybird]

IIRC Lambeth criteria for a healthy route is no more than 200 vehicles per hour at peak time if cyclists and drivers mix.more than this,it needs a separate cycle lane

 

[Rushy]

900 to 1200 is a 33% increase in traffic. That's pretty big. It does not seem unreasonable to complain about it. Especially when the purpose is to reduce traffic on a neighbouring road. Hasn't Lambeth boasted about smaller pc reductions in traffic?

I have not looked at the plans but from what Collateral Dama posted, might this be largely avoided if residents of the LTN - who have no option but to use this access point - could drive through the gates and choose the most efficient point of entry and exit from the LTN?

 

[thebackrow]

900 to 1200 is a 33% increase in traffic. That's pretty big. It does not seem unreasonable to complain about it. Especially when the purpose is to reduce traffic on a neighbouring road. Hasn't Lambeth boasted about smaller pc reductions in traffic?

At some point you have to look at absolutes - what level of traffic constitutes a 'low traffic street'. Ferndale Road doesn't look any narrower than any other street - like Concanon for example. Concanon previously took over 2.5 times the traffic volume Ferndale does now. But the distance to the first side road is just over 100m, whereas there seems to be a 300m length of Ferndale that's completely parked on both sides. This doesn't seem a difficult problem to solve - it's clearly not the absolute level of traffic that's the issue, but the ability of vehicles to pass each other.

Based on the videos that I've seen posted online the issue really appears to be the volume of mini-cabs at night - with the Duke of Edinburgh the only place open (or closing) late at night in the streets accessed from Ferndale. Which would mean allowing residents to drive through the filters wouldn't help at all. I wonder if moving the filter position so it was directly outside the Duke would be enough to reduce those trips as they would then approach it from both sides? The pub's 10 minutes from Clapham North and 7 from Brixton tubes - that so many people now take taxis for their night out rather than public transport seems a big shift from my youth.

 

[Collateral Dama]

This is a quote of you just above: “So surely comes back to removing some parking to enable vehicles to pass each other more easily, which never seems to get a response from those complaining”.

IIRC Lambeth criteria for a healthy route is no more than 200 vehicles per hour at peak time if cyclists and drivers mix.more than this,it needs a separate cycle l

At some point you have to look at absolutes - what level of traffic constitutes a 'low traffic street'. Ferndale Road doesn't look any narrower than any other street - like Concanon for example. Concanon previously took over 2.5 times the traffic volume Ferndale does now. But the distance to the first side road is just over 100m, whereas there seems to be a 300m length of Ferndale that's completely parked on both sides. This doesn't seem a difficult problem to solve - it's clearly not the absolute level of traffic that's the issue, but the ability of vehicles to pass each other.

Based on the videos that I've seen posted online the issue really appears to be the volume of mini-cabs at night - with the Duke of Edinburgh the only place open (or closing) late at night in the streets accessed from Ferndale. Which would mean allowing residents to drive through the filters wouldn't help at all. I wonder if moving the filter position so it was directly outside the Duke would be enough to reduce those trips as they would then approach it from both sides? The pub's 10 minutes from Clapham North and 7 from Brixton tubes - that so many people now take taxis for their night out rather than public transport seems a big shift from my youth.

It is the absolute level of traffic. The traffic now is incessant for most of the day and much of the night. Weekend nights are the worst because of the pub traffic, as you note, but it's now constant at most other times too. Four passing spaces isn't going to solve the problem because of the traffic level and the length of the street. It's easy for you to say that there's an easy solution but you don't live here and you're not going to have a passing space put in front of your house. This is the narrowest part of Ferndale Road. It's narrower than Ferndale East. It might be a similar width to Concanon, for example, but Concanon is not the Healthy Route and does not have the pedestrian or cycle traffic that this so-called Healthy Route does. Sparkybird is right that the "Healthy Route standard" is 200 vehicles per hour at peak. As the stage 2 report notes, we're close to that now. As I said above, we think the numbers are low and that we exceed 200 vph at times. But is it really the spirit and intention of these Healthy Routes to concentrate all the vehicle traffic on to them? I'd never heard of a Healthy Route before the LTN got started. Talk about giving a dog a name to kick it. The LTN didn't have to be constructed as it has been. Indeed, the first iteration left Ferndale Road open as the one route through the LTN for those who wanted to escape jammed boundary roads. I'd never heard of LTNs before this one landed on us but a few minutes research revealed one of the most basic rules, which is that you do not leave an open route through the LTN. Lambeth took many months to correct that basic mistake and they did so by plunking the filter down on Ferndale Road east almost at the railway bridge, creating a cul-de-sac that's half a mile long and houses roughly 2,000 people etc. The filters could be placed in different positions to create smaller "cells" with different entry and exit points, rather than making every vehicle wanting to access this half-mile stretch use just this one, narrow and purportedly Healthy route in.

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

At some point you have to look at absolutes - what level of traffic constitutes a 'low traffic street'. Ferndale Road doesn't look any narrower than any other street - like Concanon for example. Concanon previously took over 2.5 times the traffic volume Ferndale does now. But the distance to the first side road is just over 100m, whereas there seems to be a 300m length of Ferndale that's completely parked on both sides. This doesn't seem a difficult problem to solve - it's clearly not the absolute level of traffic that's the issue, but the ability of vehicles to pass each other.

Based on the videos that I've seen posted online the issue really appears to be the volume of mini-cabs at night - with the Duke of Edinburgh the only place open (or closing) late at night in the streets accessed from Ferndale. Which would mean allowing residents to drive through the filters wouldn't help at all. I wonder if moving the filter position so it was directly outside the Duke would be enough to reduce those trips as they would then approach it from both sides? The pub's 10 minutes from Clapham North and 7 from Brixton tubes - that so many people now take taxis for their night out rather than public transport seems a big shift from my youth.

moving the restriction to the other side of the pub sounds like a good idea, especially as the other side has a minimal amount of housing on the way to the main roads and it's a one way street.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Pretty sure removing through traffic will make most areas safer.

The "L" in LTN stands for "low", not "almost none".
If - as was originally theorised - LAs had been given time to measure traffic flow and develop models of local traffic, LTNs could have been effective. As it is, pollution load has merely been switched. No wonder Lambeth Council's pollution monitors on main roads are almost permanently disabled!
Rat-runs have been displaced. Where I live, idiots wanting to avoid the last 100m before the traffic lights now drive onto my estate and speed up our access rd. We're averaging 2 cars a week getting damaged - fortunately no lives yet - but hey, all hail the cunting LTNs!

 

[ViolentPanda]

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!

Here on Cressingham we've seen non-resident/courier use of our access road more than double since the Tulse Hill LTN was put in place, & a significant minority of those users drive like arseholes, including the wanker in the Subaru who allows us all the "benefit" of his car backfiring (he must have a very small penis to go with a very small brain).

 

[madolesance]

Here on Cressingham we've seen non-resident/courier use of our access road more than double since the Tulse Hill LTN was put in place, & a significant minority of those users drive like arseholes, including the wanker in the Subaru who allows us all the "benefit" of his car backfiring (he must have a very small penis to go with a very small brain).

Just how does the new Tulse Hill LTN affect Cressingham? All the recent changes are on the west side off Tulse Hill. Are you meaning the left turn/ no entry into Trinity Rise?
That's been there for years. Those rat runners it seems have just got a bit more sneaky.

 

[edcraw]

The "L" in LTN stands for "low", not "almost none".
If - as was originally theorised - LAs had been given time to measure traffic flow and develop models of local traffic, LTNs could have been effective. As it is, pollution load has merely been switched. No wonder Lambeth Council's pollution monitors on main roads are almost permanently disabled!
Rat-runs have been displaced. Where I live, idiots wanting to avoid the last 100m before the traffic lights now drive onto my estate and speed up our access rd. We're averaging 2 cars a week getting damaged - fortunately no lives yet - but hey, all hail the cunting LTNs!

Your complaining of rat running traffic on Cressingham Grdns but want others to have to deal with it? Roupell Rd was horrible before the LTN and dangerous to cross all because of traffic avoiding the main roads. Much safer now.

 

[edcraw]

Cressingham Grdns is a great example of how post war housing has been built to keep out traffic - why should streets built before cars just have to suffer from increased traffic?

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Here on Cressingham we've seen non-resident/courier use of our access road more than double since the Tulse Hill LTN was put in place, & a significant minority of those users drive like arseholes, including the wanker in the Subaru who allows us all the "benefit" of his car backfiring (he must have a very small penis to go with a very small brain).

Really sorry to hear things have been pushed your end Though I also agree with edcraw, roads like Roupell are much less dangerous/actually crossable.

Ultimately what needs to happen is most people who can need to stop or reduce driving. Problem is that everyone thinks they’re one of those who can’t. A justifiable position for those with mobility issues or heavy equipment to cart around. Not justifiable IMO just to shave a bit of time off your journey. I can see why people are finding it hard to make that jump, I just disagree that their journeys are as essential as they say (when they moan on SMN!)

Sad thing is, if car use can’t be minimised in London with the relatively amazing public transport, what chance is there in the rest of the country?

 

[teuchter]

Are you meaning the left turn/ no entry into Trinity Rise?
That's been there for years. Those rat runners it seems have just got a bit more sneaky.

There's a similar situation here in Loughborough Junction, where Padfield Rd allows people to bypass the traffic lights at the junction of Herne Hill Road and Coldharbour Lane. Especially going south it just requires a left turn off CH Lane, down Padfield Rd and another left turn onto HH Road, and lots of drivers like doing all this at considerable speed which means it's not much fun trying to cross the junctions at either end of the cut-through.

This is happening without any LTNs in the vicinity. In fact part of the ill fated Loughborough Junction road changes a few years ago included putting a block on Padfield Rd. And no-one could argue that that block made access to their home anything other than very marginally more inconvenient than before. The only people it inconvenienced were those who wanted to drive straight through and avoid some traffic lights. Nonetheless, it was scrapped along with everything else when Lambeth lost their bottle. The justification in the report for its removal is mainly based on the outcome of "consultation", which in practice means that enough people who wanted to continue to dodge the traffic lights, or who just had an ideological opposition to any traffic blocking in principle, got their answers in to the survey.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Really sorry to hear things have been pushed your end Though I also agree with edcraw, roads like Roupell are much less dangerous/actually crossable.

Ultimately what needs to happen is most people who can need to stop or reduce driving. Problem is that everyone thinks they’re one of those who can’t. A justifiable position for those with mobility issues or heavy equipment to cart around. Not justifiable IMO just to shave a bit of time off your journey. I can see why people are finding it hard to make that jump, I just disagree that their journeys are as essential as they say (when they moan on SMN!)

Sad thing is, if car use can’t be minimised in London with the relatively amazing public transport, what chance is there in the rest of the country?

This is why it needs to be forced. People are never going to give up their cars willingly.

Ban private cars from city centres. Ban on street parking for private vehicles. Make petrol ruinously expensive. Tax per mile, weighted against vehicle size, close through/cross city road routes. 20mph max in any built up area, etc etc.

Driving needs to be made an utterly miserable experience for anyone it isn’t absolutely essential for. And that’s a list a lot smaller than most people think.

 

[Winot]

This is why it needs to be forced. People are never going to give up their cars willingly.

Ban private cars from city centres. Ban on street parking for private vehicles. Make petrol ruinously expensive. Tax per mile, weighted against vehicle size, close through/cross city road routes. 20mph max in any built up area, etc etc.

Driving needs to be made an utterly miserable experience for anyone it isn’t absolutely essential for. And that’s a list a lot smaller than most people think.

Well yes, but forced by whom? Problem in London is that road control is split between TfL and local authorities. And some LAs are scared of selfish drivers voting them out so cancel LTNs (Ealing, Wandsworth, Kensington).

The situation is overly complex and holds back sensible transport planning. TfL should have control of all London transport and all London roads.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Well yes, but forced by whom? Problem in London is that road control is split between TfL and local authorities. And some LAs are scared of selfish drivers voting them out so cancel LTNs (Ealing, Wandsworth, Kensington).

The situation is overly complex and holds back sensible transport planning. TfL should have control of all London transport and all London roads.

Not just London. The whole mess needs a national approach.