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

[teuchter]

It's a good start, but they have obviously been cowed by the botched previous scheme. They retain on-street parking, right next to the cycle lane with only a row of bollards between. Not safe.

View attachment 346076

They even do this ridiculous thing where the cycle lane goes in front of the bus stop, which just invites collisions between peds and cycles. If there was no on-street parking, the road lanes could simply shift out of the way for a regular bus island.

View attachment 346077

The road is more than wide enough. Compromises should not be neccesary. If that much parking is needed (which I'd argue it's not) then there's tons of space off-street. Obviously, the council can't make that happen so.... sigh.

The junction at fiveways pinches what should be a continuously protected route through the junction. Akerman Road is plenty wide enough, but again car parking must be protected. No idea why they're pinching the North end of Loughborough Road. Southbound cycles and vehicles are forced to share space, when there's plenty of room for both side by side. EDIT: I suppose this will become more pleasant once Akerman becomes part of an LTN. In that case, Northbound cycles will need their own green phase to avoid being hooked by through traffic turning left.

View attachment 346075

The junction with Coldharbour Lane is notably absent.

Agree with everything you say, although I think it's a fair improvement on what's there just now.

Those floating parking bays at least appear to have a buffer zone alongside them that should give room for car doors opening without encroaching on the cycle lane.

Looks like there's still time to comment on the fiveways junction.

Road Improvements - HAVE YOUR SAY (26 Sep to 6 Nov)

A few improvements will make it safer and healthier for pedestrians and cyclists. Find out more here.

ljstreets.commonplace.is

 

[thebackrow]

It's a good start, but they have obviously been cowed by the botched previous scheme. They retain on-street parking, right next to the cycle lane with only a row of bollards between. Not safe.

View attachment 346076

They even do this ridiculous thing where the cycle lane goes in front of the bus stop, which just invites collisions between peds and cycles. If there was no on-street parking, the road lanes could simply shift out of the way for a regular bus island.

View attachment 346077

The road is more than wide enough. Compromises should not be neccesary. If that much parking is needed (which I'd argue it's not) then there's tons of space off-street. Obviously, the council can't make that happen so.... sigh.

The junction at fiveways pinches what should be a continuously protected route through the junction. Akerman Road is plenty wide enough, but again car parking must be protected. No idea why they're pinching the North end of Loughborough Road. Southbound cycles and vehicles are forced to share space, when there's plenty of room for both side by side. EDIT: I suppose this will become more pleasant once Akerman becomes part of an LTN. In that case, Northbound cycles will need their own green phase to avoid being hooked by through traffic turning left.

View attachment 346075

The junction with Coldharbour Lane is notably absent.

That's a pretty harsh review of it - it's going to be a massive improvement over what there is at the moment.

A lane running behind parked cars (with a buffer) feels really safe where I've ridden on them. Yes, you've got a small risk of someone opening a door on you (but you've got that everywhere you ride on the outside of parked cars now, and at least here you're not going to get knocked into moving traffic. Somewhere it says they've done a parking survey and this retains what is currently 'needed'. Removing parking is a guaranteed way to stir up opposition to any scheme so I'd take some reduction over none.

Likewise bus boarders - it's a request only stop for the P5 which runs every 14 minutes at peak, every 20 off peak. It doesn't feel like it's going to be significant conflict there. And theres scope to come back and put in your proposal later (removing more parking...)

Lets hope the junction gets an update in future - at the moment this doesn't go anywhere. Neither left down the next section of Loughborough Road to join Brixton Road, nor onward through Myatts Fields are much fun at the moment - but these areas are next on the list for LTNs so that could all change. But you've got to build one link at a time. I'm guessing maybe there will be an advance green light for cyclists at the junction so that you can clear it ahead of motor traffic.

 

[Crispy]

Yeah I did put the boot in a bit, on reflection The reality is that yes this is the best that can be achieved in the political climate.
The trouble with advance green is that it's only any use if you arrive at the junction on red. It has to be a whole separate green phase to work.

The drawing says two-stage right turn, but it feels like a straight ahead if you're headed for Akerman. When the LTN comes in, the junction will feel (for drivers) more like a through road with two RH turns. Maybe if the junction is designed with that in mind it would make more sense. Not going to go drawing lanes and things, but like this:

 

[thebackrow]

Yeah I did put the boot in a bit, on reflection The reality is that yes this is the best that can be achieved in the political climate.
The trouble with advance green is that it's only any use if you arrive at the junction on red. It has to be a whole separate green phase to work.

The drawing says two-stage right turn, but it feels like a straight ahead if you're headed for Akerman. When the LTN comes in, the junction will feel (for drivers) more like a through road with two RH turns. Maybe if the junction is designed with that in mind it would make more sense. Not going to go drawing lanes and things, but like this:

View attachment 346150

The two stage rights are lifford to Ackerman and Loughborough to Loughborough aren’t they? (I’m never convinced by them - confidant cyclists won’t want uk wait and will turn right in traffic. Unconfidant cyclists can do a two stage right at any junction whether it’s marked or not (there are places I do it on multi lane roads). And they’re nearly impossible to sign in a way that someone hitting the junction for the first time will understand (which is when they need it most).

 

[sleaterkinney]

The trouble is also not seeing when the light changes behind you.

 

[teuchter]

Motorists excelling themselves at Herne Hill this afternoon, stationary traffic managing to block both pedestrian crossings simultaneously.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Part of Ackerman rd used to be a double carriageway, that was a missed opportunity.

 

[Rushy]

The DfT last week published a review of its road traffic data for 2009-2019. This is the data which reported (amongst other things) that traffic on C and U roads in London had spiked by an astonishing 72% in that decade, after only minor change in the preceding decade. Across the country as a whole the reported increase of small road traffic was 25%.

This data sparked intense speculation about the effect of GPS on traffic behaviour and was used to highlight the urgency of LTNs.



Review of the DfT's figures discovered that the reported increases were not reflected anywhere in the raw data. TfL had apparently also expressed misgivings about the original report as it did not reflect their own data. The review discovered not only methodological flaws but more basic errors such as using the wrong data in any particular year.

After review the change in traffic on small roads across the country in the ten years to 2019 was last week reviewed down from 25% to 9.8% (almost exactly in line with overall traffic on all roads). For London the figure for the change in traffic on U and C roads in the decade to2019 has been reviewed down from 72% to … zero. Precisely none of the alarming uptick shown in the graph above had actually happened.

They also compared the data for London’s B, C and U roads combined (as this is the new category for small roads). This was also reduced from 60% to zero.

Whatever one's feelings on LTNs, this is quite remarkable.

 

[thebackrow]

The DfT last week published a review of its road traffic data for 2009-2019. This is the data which reported (amongst other things) that traffic on C and U roads in London had spiked by an astonishing 72% in that decade, after only minor change in the preceding decade. Across the country as a whole the reported increase of small road traffic was 25%.

This data sparked intense speculation about the effect of GPS on traffic behaviour and was used to highlight the urgency of LTNs.

View attachment 346445

Review of the DfT's figures discovered that the reported increases were not reflected anywhere in the raw data. TfL had apparently also expressed misgivings about the original report as it did not reflect their own data. The review discovered not only methodological flaws but more basic errors such as using the wrong data in any particular year.

After review the change in traffic on small roads across the country in the ten years to 2019 was last week reviewed down from 25% to 9.8% (almost exactly in line with overall traffic on all roads). For London the figure for the change in traffic on U and C roads in the decade to2019 has been reviewed down from 72% to … zero. Precisely none of the alarming uptick shown in the graph above had actually happened.

They also compared the data for London’s B, C and U roads combined (as this is the new category for small roads). This was also reduced from 60% to zero.

Whatever one's feelings on LTNs, this is quite remarkable.

The 'no increase in London' actually hides a fall in inner London and a rise in Outer London.

Unhelpfully the DFT report doesn't break out minor and major London roads.

It is interesting to posit why there may have been a fall because it's definitely not what it feels like on minor roads over the last decade and anyone trying to claim that satnav use hasn't had a significant impact on the routes people drive on really isn't serious. Personal experience suggests they significantly increase rat running. Averages can hide a lot and rat running tends to most affect only a subset of minor roads.

However, the fall in traffic miles in central London suggests that TfL's transport strategy, which has focused spend on inner London (and of which LTNs form a part) - is having an impact which should surely be seen as good news.

But I'm not sure why anyone is suggesting (and I know that you haven't) that this should drive a change in approach - the current Lambeth Transport and Climate plans are aiming for a 27% reduction in vehicle miles by 2030 so theres an awful lot further to go. And that was based on the data from before that 2019 revision - I can't see that Lambeth have ever used that data as a key factor in their strategy (I can't see it referred to anywhere in the Low Traffic Neighbourhood Plan, (published pre-Covid)

 

[edcraw]

Looks like OneLambeth’s treasurer miscalculated or something

 

[alex_]

Looks like OneLambeth’s treasurer miscalculated or something

View attachment 346522

Good to hear the lady they took advantage off hasn’t been left hanging.

 

[teuchter]

Quite difficult to understand exactly what has happened with this revision of the minor/major road numbers.

Is it that a "re-benchmarking" (which is routinely done every 10 years?) was carried out in 2018 which produced this apparent very large rise in London, this was noted as unexpected, and what's been published just now is a review of that 2018 excercise?

I see it's mentioned in TfL's 2021 "Travel In London" Report on page 143.





So does this mean that there was a window of 2-3 years where this erroneous data was being used in reports and so on?

Or was anyone making use of it to draw conclusions on certain questions already aware that it was questionable?

It would be interesting to read a summary of what exactly it means, from someone who knows what they are talking about. Which probably exists out there somewhere on a niche transport modelling blog or similar.

 

[Rushy]

My very shallow top line understanding, courtesy of Tim Harford on More or Less, is that the raw data was requested by a chap (who had some understanding of such things) in the course of challenging his local LTN. He felt that the reported increase did not mirror his own experience.

When supplied with the raw data he could not see the reported patterns of 70% traffic increases reflected anywhere in the numbers and asked for clarification of how the statistics had been calculated. This led the DfT to review their own data and recognise the mistakes - both methodological and basic data entry. Among other data, they reviewed the reported increase of traffic on London's local roads over the preceding decade down from 70% to zero.

The same guy also FoI'd correspondence and received emails showing that TfL had previously questioned the DfT's results because they were so different to their own data. The implication seemed to be that this was was not investigated at the time.

 

[teuchter]

I had a listen to the R4 thing. It's this chap



Some of the FOI info seems to be in this tweet.



He's clearly strongly against the principle of LTNs but fair play to him for challenging the data and also to the DfT for going ahead and correcting it.

Obviously there will be lots of people who used those wrong figures as parts of justifications for and against things but they will have done so in good faith.

I shall watch all the ensuing arguments with interest. For me personally, I don't think it changes anything. I want to see less traffic everywhere and this doesn't affect the basic reasoning behind LTNs or LTN-like measures.

In amongst that chap's tweets and TfL reports is something else interesting which I wasn't aware of, which is that there seems to be some indication that traffic in London is plateauing post-pandemic at a lower level than it was before. Cue much discussion (I expect) about whether this is influenced by traffic measured introduced during Covid or changed travel habits resulting from other Covid related stuff like WFH. Seems to me that a much closer look at what is happening in inner/outer London, at borough level, and by road type is needed.

 

[nick]

I had a listen to the R4 thing. It's this chap

Being Googly challenged I had a little trouble locating this.

For benefit of others.
More or Less: 5th Oct "Teens and Antidepressant" - 21 minutes in

 

[Rushy]

Being Googly challenged I had a little trouble locating this.

For benefit of others.
More or Less: 5th Oct "Teens and Antidepressant" - 21 minutes in

The interview with Dr Krause of charity Stem 4 about the antidepressants stats is also worth a listen. (Warning - it's not LTN related. Although it does also question stats reporting an unexpected spike...)

 

[Agent Sparrow]

The best things the LTNs have done IMPO is reduce the number of speeding wankers on residential roads, and the number of outright dangerous drivers on Railton Road. Reduced mind you, not stopped completely.

I’d really like a system where if you’re caught speeding 3 times in a fixed period that’s an automatic month ban. The one time after that it’s a 2 month ban etc. Won’t ever happen but that’s on my road rules wish list anyway.

 

[Rushy]

The best things the LTNs have done IMPO is reduce the number of speeding wankers on residential roads, and the number of outright dangerous drivers on Railton Road. Reduced mind you, not stopped completely.

I agree - it's not stopped them. Still get them on my street as it is split in two by the LTN and both the remaining stretches are long and straight. As rat runners have been stopped, it does seem to suggest that it is largely local residents, which is a shame. I think I said on this thread a couple of years ago that I'd welcome a 10mph homezone over an LTN as the improvement to my quality of life would be far greater. As it is, when my child is cycling to school I find myself walking defensively in the middle of the road - it's a bit safer; but it's still not safe.

I’d really like a system where if you’re caught speeding 3 times in a fixed period that’s an automatic month ban. The one time after that it’s a 2 month ban etc. Won’t ever happen but that’s on my road rules wish list anyway.

That sounds rather lenient! It's hard enough getting caught once. If you are caught repeatedly speeding you must be doing it constantly - especially on small back roads - and that merits an impactful ban IMO.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

That sounds rather lenient! It's hard enough getting caught once. If you are caught repeatedly speeding you must be doing it constantly - especially on small back roads - and that merits an impactful ban IMO.

Oh I’ve have a lot more speed cameras up, and hidden ones too if I were Ruler Of The Roads! But yes, I agree there needs to be a proper disincentive for speeding on residential roads.

Some of my mum’s friends (not her thankfully) say they shouldn’t abide by the newish 20mph rules because “who is going to police it anyway?”

 

[teuchter]

If there were a realistic chance of a 10mph limit being enforced and observed, then I'd probably be happy to have LTNs converted to 10mph zones too.

There's currently not the slightest chance of a 10mph limit being enforced or observed though. Maybe that could change if/when we eventually get to the point of having in-vehicle speed limiters.

 

[BusLanes]

Given the Met are too busy doing stuff they think more important I wonder if a separate traffic police service would work.

Obviously we won't do it due to cost at the very least but in somewhere like London maybe it could work.

We have BTP for trains and stations after all!

 

[alex_]

Given the Met are too busy doing stuff they think more important I wonder if a separate traffic police service would work.

Obviously we won't do it due to cost at the very least but in somewhere like London maybe it could work.

We have BTP for trains and stations after all!

You have to suspect it could be self funding.

 

[Rushy]

If there were a realistic chance of a 10mph limit being enforced and observed, then I'd probably be happy to have LTNs converted to 10mph zones too.

There's currently not the slightest chance of a 10mph limit being enforced or observed though. Maybe that could change if/when we eventually get to the point of having in-vehicle speed limiters.

Speed limiters are already mandatory in all new vehicles (not perfect as they can be temporarily overridden).

Homezones are more than just a speed limit on a sign. It's quite different to changing a straight road from 30 to 20.

 

[Rushy]

Given the Met are too busy doing stuff they think more important I wonder if a separate traffic police service would work.

Obviously we won't do it due to cost at the very least but in somewhere like London maybe it could work.

We have BTP for trains and stations after all!

I suspect that the cheapest way to do this would be citizen / community based if tech could be sorted. Tech which made reasonably accurate recording of speed using phones connected to relatively affordable peripherals. Probably tricky for likes of 22 in a 20 but can't be beyond the ability of man to measure 30 in a 20 with enough confidence. Drivers already get prosecuted on the basis of citizen phone evidence.

In fact, this seems to suggest it is already possible? (ETA Judging by the reviews some refinement is required!)

 

[Torpid Scorpion]

have been travelling. Great to see the new LTNs mooted.

Has anyone got a map of these? I cannot make sense of the boundaries of the myatts field one.

 

[teuchter]

Speed limiters are already mandatory in all new vehicles (not perfect as they can be temporarily overridden).

Homezones are more than just a speed limit on a sign. It's quite different to changing a straight road from 30 to 20.

As I understand it the new speed limiters can simply be turned off (at the beginning of each journey if you want to).

But things may change in time. Maybe insurers will start to require that it's always turned on.

It looks to me like in-vehicle speed limiters might have a significant effect on speeding in the future, but it's not going to happen immediately.

I'd be on board with any Home Zones proposed for residential streets. But a properly implemented one is a much more extensive intervention than an LTN. So I assume a lot more expensive to implement, and they would also be faced with resistance and most of the same objections. We've ended up with LTNs because they are the type of intervention that seems most likely to actually get implemented, even if there are potentially better solutions. And they may well serve as tepping stones towards better solutions like Home Zone type approaches. But I think we already did this discussion however many hundred years ago near the start of the thread.

 

[alex_]

As I understand it the new speed limiters can simply be turned off (at the beginning of each journey if you want to).

But things may change in time. Maybe insurers will start to require that it's always turned on.

Within 10 years they will be in >50% of vehicles and it’s such a no brainer for insurers, 3rd party cover only if your limiter was switched off.

Why wouldn’t you put this in as a policy exclusion ?

 

[teuchter]

Within 10 years they will be in >50% of vehicles and it’s such a no brainer for insurers, 3rd party cover only if your limiter was switched off.

Why wouldn’t you put this in as a policy exclusion ?

Possibly if there is sufficient resistance to anything that records your driving habits, location etc.

I know that there are already insurance options with "black box" recorders. So obviously some people are OK with it, but I wonder how long it will take for it to be accepted as standard?

There is of course still the problem of cars that simply aren't insured at all and my impression is that they are well represented amongst south london's worst and most dangerous drivers.

 

[Rushy]

There is of course still the problem of cars that simply aren't insured at all and my impression is that they are well represented amongst south london's worst and most dangerous drivers.

Sure. But LTNs are similarly vulnerable to unregistered vehicles, fake number plates, simple covering of plates, etc.. I'm only guessing but presume that this tends not be the done thing amongst our more upstanding drivers. Yet this imperfection has not prevented LTNs from making a worthwhile impact, so I'm led to believe.

 

[teuchter]

Sure. But LTNs are similarly vulnerable to unregistered vehicles, fake number plates, simple covering of plates, etc.. I'm only guessing but presume that this tends not be the done thing amongst our more upstanding drivers. Yet this imperfection has not prevented LTNs from making a worthwhile impact, so I'm led to believe.

Yes, LTNs are vulnerable to this.
Enforcement of speed limits by in-car means is vulnerable to this, and additionally is not yet available.
Extensive streetscape modifications (eg Home Zone type schemes) are a bit less vulnerable because they try and make it difficult to drive fast regardless of insurance or registration, but are expensive and likely to raise a lot of resistance.

So this is why we currently have a focus on LTN type schemes, in my view.

They don't preclude in-car speed limiting systems, or more extensive modifications to residential street design, playing an increasing role in the future, and maybe we'll one day get to a point where there's no need to fully restrict access at certain points and police it with ANPR systems and so on.