liquidindian
Hello
That doesn't happen.
Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
Cat Fan
Cats and stats
I was more trying to explain why many families with small kids may see running a car as essential or borderline essential.
Particularly in the more suburban areas where public transport is not as fabulous.
Much is made of the majority of households in Lambeth being car free.
But in fact TFL's stats show that 68% of households in London with children own a car. And excluding low incomes the figure is over 85%, which implies that almost all households with children would like to have a car, but not all can afford one.
While Lambeth is on the lower end of car ownership viewed across all London boroughs it actually is above average for an "inner borough".
The south of Lambeth blends into Croydon and Merton where car ownership is 64%. Public transport is also generally less good.
So it's unrealistic to extend blanket policies penalising car ownership into the south of the borough otherwise it's probably going to disproportionately impact families with children, while retired households and younger adult households (e.g. students) are less likely to be impacted.
All in all we can certainly try and discourage car ownership and make it less convenient but it's divisive and there will be winners and losers. Eliminating private cars from London entirely is a pipe dream except for in the most built up urban parts of the city. I prefer the mayor's approach of congestion charge/ULEZ which punishes the most frequent drivers and most polluting. There are worse things than a few parked cars in suburban, residential areas.
If we're going back to the original point on reducing parking spaces to plant more trees and have more cycling storage, it seems like a good policy. No objections from me.
Agree with other posters that parklets are a bit crap. But more tree planting and more cycle hangars have to be good. More electric charging infrastructure would help too.
I think this is the “I agree with the aims of the scheme but it’s unfair because the minority of better off people with cars are negatively impacted. If you could do it without impacting me I’d be fully in favour” technique
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
In terms of ownership its a lot to expect that people immediately sell their car when an LTN is implemented - it's either a sunk cost (ie paid for) or a lease or loan that has some time to run. I'd guess the point at which people might decide not to own a car any longer is when they one they have needs replacing. (that's whats' happened with all the people I've known who've owned a car and then not). Thats going to be a pretty gradual change. I'd guess it also affects where people choose to live - if your car is a massive status symbol and part of your identity you'd logically think about moving to a different area in the same way that new car free developments are going to, by definition, to only attract non-car owners.
In terms of use your anecdata doesn't seem to chime with the normal anti-LTN line that people are trapped in their homes, unable to travel, lives being made more difficult, having to drive the long way round. I don't think either usage or ownership is something that any of us can measure to any useful degree based on casual observation. I do think that the LTNs have a made a lot of people pay more attention to traffic whereas they'd just accepted it before - so many claims of huge (observed) increases that are completely contradicted by traffic counts and of choking on unbreathable air whereas all of the data shows that London's air has been getting cleaner year on year for some time (due to ever tighter emission standards on vehicles, accelerated by the ULEZ).
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
If you think LTNs penalise drivers then surely they also have most impact on those who drive frequently.
For people in an LTN it's likely that some trips by car will be a bit longer (not all - because presumably in some directions they'll still be exiting the area in the direction they're travelling in, and even for some trips further away that are altered driving around the edge of the LTN won't be the most direct route).
If you only drive once or twice a week that's no great shakes really.
It's only really a big deal if you're driving a short trips frequently. Like 'the school run', or driving your dog to shit in the park twice a day, or the people I see driving and coming back with one bag of shopping from the supermarket. Or who seem to have driven to buy a takeaway coffee.
editor
hiraethified
Why do traffic reduction schemes attract so many conspiracy theories? | Peter Walker
Plan to restrict car journeys in Oxford becomes lightning rod for fears of global assault on freedoms
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
8ball
AV REFUGEES WELCOME
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Here's the "action against unfair ULEZ" page if anyone is interested in reading about the various SUVs and trucks that mayor Khan is forcing londoners to sell to people in the provinces.
www.facebook.com
Action Against Unfair ULEZ CAZ, LTN, PPM & 20mph Nonsense | Facebook
We need to act NOW. This is rapidly going national. We need ideas, proposals and people who can actually do something. Please add people like crazy because we need to be quick. Share the hell out...
www.facebook.com
8ball
AV REFUGEES WELCOME
Here's the "action against unfair ULEZ" page if anyone is interested in reading about the various SUVs and trucks that mayor Khan is forcing londoners to sell to people in the provinces.
Action Against Unfair ULEZ CAZ, LTN, PPM & 20mph Nonsense | Facebook
We need to act NOW. This is rapidly going national. We need ideas, proposals and people who can actually do something. Please add people like crazy because we need to be quick. Share the hell out...
I'll bet my brother-in-law is on there already picking up Range Rovers for a song and selling them on.
Cat Fan
Cats and stats
I am pro LTN but I do think there's a limit to what they can achieve on their own, so we need more restrictions, ideally ones that apply equally to non residents like a stricter ULEZ or road pricing.
Also car owners are not the minority in the more suburban, outer areas of London in fact there are a strong majority and that includes the most deprived boroughs. Which makes the political challenge even harder sadly.
Cat Fan
Cats and stats
Yeah, that's spot on to be fair.
Cat Fan
Cats and stats
Yes, I do see a lot of 21/22 reg cars on the street and the LTN was put in place during lockdown. But I have no idea if there would have been more or less it the LTN hadn't gone in.
Lambeth should have the stats on how many cars have registered for their CPZs that are inside LTNs and how that changes over time. It will be interesting to see.
Hollis
bloody furious
Yeah - unfortunately when you have only a few of them implemented as in Haringey, you have junctions clogged up and they find new rat runs through the areas that aren't in LTNs. Especially when the areas chosen in Haringey were apparently based on low car ownership + existing rat running (per local Living Streets group). So the evarporation within the areas will be less substantial than a high car ownring area.
Hollis
bloody furious
I have some questions with the studies and data being collected. The data seems to focus on the LTNs and boundary roads - which for example in some studies is defined as within 500m. Again, in Haringey, we're seeing displaced traffic much beyond 500m..
The evaluation study which is being planned isn't going to capture this - as it's selected control areas far removed from the boundary areas and LTNs - because there's an expectation that there will be traffic displacement (Haringey Council's own evaluation plan..). Surely regardless of where you sit in relation to LTNs data beyond 500m should be included within the evaluation.
University of Westminster to lead major £1.5m new study on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in London
Last edited:
Cat Fan
Cats and stats
Don't be surprised that councils spin the data to get the outcome they want.
Lambeth has been culprits of this, for example:
- not collecting data on major boundary roads because they're TFL managed
- not measuring pollution outside important schools/care homes on boundary roads
- showing all numbers as % change not absolute change when the absolute numbers are far less impressive, given that boundary roads have higher absolute numbers
Again, I'm in favour of LTNs but it's typical of the council to twist numbers in this way
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I'd got the impression that you weren't keen on restrictions because of this bit of a previous post -
So what policies in particular are you worried about?
Cat Fan
Cats and stats
I'm worried that forcing LTNs onto the suburbs (where people genuinely rely on cars) will backfire and then all LTNs will be tarred with the same brush.
I'm also worried about them being badly implemented and leading to problems that way.
And a little bit worried about the A23, S Circular and Leigham court road being completely gridlocked once Streatham Vale and Brixton hill LTNs are finished, to the extent that no one will be able to get anywhere.
But hopefully it means less car journeys in the long run
Not sure you can call Streatham Wells the suburbs. Also, car ownership there is still only about 50% and the highest areas are like 70% so lots of people are managing without.
Talk of gridlock caused by LTNs seems to be unfounded. I don’t see this on the Sth Circular despite Tulse Hill & Streatham Hill LTNs being either side. Fact is these roads, especially A23 through Streatham, are at capacity at the moment at peak times so can’t really get any worse, non local traffic will find other routes.
Most of the opposition to Streatham Wells LTN really seems to be from drivers worried that they’ll be inconvenienced which is at least more honest than with previous LTNs where they’ve tried to make out its for other reasons. But we’ve focussed on making everything convenient for drivers for decades now at the expense of everyone else so seems rather selfish for people to start chucking their toys out of the pram at being slightly inconvenienced to make things better for everyone.
nick
Pleomorphic Adenomas R us
I believe the south circular (moving west from Tulse Hill to the A23) is a lot worse now
Correlation is not causation, although I suspect there is a relationship here.
But I have no problem with that, as the Sth Circular is meant to be a main arterial, whereas the side streets aren't
Correlation is not causation, although I suspect there is a relationship here.
But I have no problem with that, as the Sth Circular is meant to be a main arterial, whereas the side streets aren't
I live within sight of it and can’t say I’ve seen this. Have seen improvements at Roupell Rd no there isn’t traffic turning in & out of there or going across.
But as you say that’s exactly where the traffic should be.
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
The Streatham Hill LTN wasn't in place (signage removed and not enforced) from the start of June to the start of December last year and I didn't notice any comments about traffic on the South Circular there improving, nor any about it getting worse when it was reinstated.
I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that South Circular traffic increases seemed to be an after effect of COVID travel/working pattern changes - increases were seen across sections nowhere near any LTNs.
sparkybird
ask the bird...
Streatham Wells even has a local bus! But it was identified by Lambeth as the ward having the second worst negative impacts by traffic in the whole borough. I imagine this is in large part due to Valley Road taking 10,000 vehicles a day, much of which is cut through traffic. So these drivers are going to be cheesed off that their cut through route will be going.
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
Car ownership looks very mixed through Streatham - the census shows some streets where car free households are 20-30% (low for London) but also others where almost 70% of homes are car free (highest I saw was 69% scanning quickly).
You could make an argument that improving walking and cycling for those car free households in areas where public transport is poorer should be even more of a priority than where it's good as you're giving better transport options to those without cars (cycling in many parts of Streatham and Norwood at the moment is grim enough to exclude all but the bravest).
Sustrans suggestions for criteria in prioritisation are here (using Lambeths map as an example)
Wells -
Hi,
Grant Shapps warns councils to make roads more accessible for everyone | SWLondoner
More than 130 community groups released a joint statement last week in support of the introduction of Low Traffic Neighbourhoodwww.swlondoner.co.uk
Oval Triangle resident Francois Jardin, general manager of the Fentiman Arms pub, believes his quality of life has improved significantly with the reduction of noise pollution in particular.
Mr Jardin has also seen a positive impact socially with the LTN. He said: “I think the community forgot about the fact that they live next to each other and I think that is the impact that, socially speaking, is very beneficial.”
However, Mr Shapps acknowledged that when done well, the emergency measures have proved hugely popular with the ‘silent majority’.
“Millions of people, the vast majority of them non-cyclists, have already benefited from measures to reduce rat-running through narrow residential streets, cut danger to children around schools, make walking easier and provide safe space for cycling on main roads,” he wrote.
Probably the only thing I would agree with Shapps on.
I am in general agreement with LTN's and genuinely empathise with "sleaterkinney".
However, as an occasional visitor to Fentiman Road, the relatively new signage indicating entry restriction is not sufficient. We got caught entering from the A3. The sign barring entry is about 5m back from the main road, so virtually un-seeable before entry. Once seen, is the motorist expected to back up into the oncoming cycle lane on the main road?! that is assuming he/she sees the sign in time. The fine is £130, £65 if paid quickly. I acknowledge that, on closer inspection, there is a sign indicating no left turn for cars and motorcycles right by the zebra crossing before the road - next time I'll look at the sign instead of looking out for crossing pedestrians.
According to the Mirror newspaper, London councils have taken £100 Million in fines for entry into LTN's - knowing the Mirror it is probably about half that, but even £50 Million is a huge amount for unsuspecting motorists to pay. What it indicates is that existing signage is insufficient - nobody is going to willingly enter a road that will cost them £65 minimum - we certainly wouldn't. I note that in certain boroughs the no entry points did not attract fines for the first 3 months to allow locals to get used to them. This indicates councils know signage is not sufficient and don't want to upset their constituents, but happy to upset everyone else! "Experts" working for the councils (that are taking £10's of Millions from the public in fines) tell us the signage is sufficient - but the circa 1 Million fined motorists may disagree.
It is obvious to anyone with an IQ over 40 that a clear no-entry sign is required at the road entrance, not back from it. If entry is allowed for cyclists and emergency vehicles then that should be indicated, but to the majority of road users, entry will be seen to be prohibited. LTN's were set up in Enfield and resulted in £2 Million being taken in fines in short order, other councils have clearly seen how much money can be made through this scheme and followed suit. There was an outcry from local drivers in Enfield at the time and the Councillor said he would look into better signage, in view of the backlash Transport chiefs to look again at LTN signs as fines near £2 million That was in March 2021 but nothing has happened - perhaps he was too busy spending that £2 Million.
I think that these LTN prohibited entry points are just one more way councils can financially penalise motorists unfairly (and, to my mind, illegally) thus bolstering their coffers. Is anyone aware of an action-group with a similar view? - figures show 1 Million such fines over the last 3 years! Better yet, is anyone aware of a budding class action being undertaken over this? The law should be there to protect the public from this sort of profiteering.
sparkybird
ask the bird...
The bit I know well on that map where car ownership is high is Valleyfield Road and Belltrees Grove. Both are on steep hills with really big houses, I don't recall seeing any converted into flats. Wealth plus hills = cars
liquidindian
Hello
Councils should increase the fines and use this to pay for some form of online group therapy for those fined.
Similar threads
