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

[sleaterkinney]

Hi,

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.

I don’t know that particular filter but I see motorists driving through them even now with clear stop signs.
I guess part of the issue was that the filters were temporary to start with, and also they had to let emergency vehicles through, but there’s really no excuse any more.

The amount of fines needs to increase imo, local councils should be running speed cameras like Wandsworth. London council will become first in the UK to issue £130 fines for exceeding 20mph limit.
It’s not a war on the motorist - they’re screwing up the planet for the rest of us!

 

[teuchter]

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.

It's not a zebra crossing. If you're approaching a junction such that you can't look out for signage and pedestrians at the same time, you must be going too fast. It's not an either or. The no left turn sign is perfectly clear.



And you would see all this:



At the moment before you actually turn left.

 

[Cat Fan]

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.

What actually happened was most of the signs stayed up and sat navs still treated the LTN gates as impassable, so I don't think that it would have made a difference except for a few individuals who were in the know.

 

[Cat Fan]

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.

Most commonly used as an alternative to Leigham court road, so is Leigham court road taking those 10,000 vehicles a day instead? It's also a single lane residential road

 

[Pepperpot]

Councils should increase the fines and use this to pay for some form of online group therapy for those fined.

Hee-hee. Seriously though, it's a Catch 22, councils could use a tiny proportion of the £10's of Millions they receive from these traps to put up proper signage, but then they would not get the vast sums of money in because motorists would not transgress. I agree with LTN's - great idea, just lets get the signage right so they work for everybody and not just act as a drain on those fined, at a time when most families are financially suffering already.

 

[Cat Fan]

Hee-hee. Seriously though, it's a Catch 22, councils could use a tiny proportion of the £10's of Millions they receive from these traps to put up proper signage, but then they would not get the vast sums of money in because motorists would not transgress. I agree with LTN's - great idea, just lets get the signage right so they work for everybody and not just act as a drain on those fined, at a time when most families are financially suffering already.

I think first offence should be a warning or a reduced fine, because it's easy to do by accident. My poor mum has done it when driving in to visit me. Luckily it was a transition period so she did get off with a warning.

 

[liquidindian]

proper signage

If it's not proper you can appeal.

 

[Hilldweller]

I was wondering about the pro's and con's of a system that allocated a % of LTN revenue raised in an area to the LTN covered? A version of how (i think) some of CIL money is allocated

 

[sparkybird]

Most commonly used as an alternative to Leigham court road, so is Leigham court road taking those 10,000 vehicles a day instead? It's also a single lane residential road

Valley road runs pretty much parallel to the A23 so I imagine many are using it to avoid that road, which is where they should be. It also feeds alot of traffic into Leigham Vale as an 'alternative' route from Streatham to Tulse Hill. I'm hoping the Streatham Wells LTN helps cut traffic on this road as well. LCR is designated a local distributor road (unlike Valley) so should be taking local traffic, as well as the double decker bus. And of course some of those 10,000 are not just passing through.

 

[Pepperpot]

If it's not proper you can appeal.

Appeals have been tried previously for this junction, and failed - there is a disincentive for Lambeth Council to uphold because they set up the signage in the first place and it will earn them a lot of easy money in fines. My point is that, at this junction, the signage is 25 feet into Fentiman Road so, unless a road user has previous knowledge of it, it is a retrospective warning. Also, motorists will look for no-entry signs at the junction, not some way into it. This, in my opinion, makes it a clear trap. If signage is clear and well-placed for these junctions how come there is such widespread controversy - see Fines for drivers in LTNs hit £3m amid row over signs The only way this practice will be prevented in future is if enough victims of it bring it to light, hence my question about group action.
To answer a more general point, we had planned to meet friends in London and come in by train but there was a rail strike that day. We live in a village without strong public transport links, so need a car.

 

[Pepperpot]

It's not a zebra crossing. If you're approaching a junction such that you can't look out for signage and pedestrians at the same time, you must be going too fast. It's not an either or. The no left turn sign is perfectly clear.

View attachment 359480

And you would see all this:

View attachment 359482

At the moment before you actually turn left.

You just made my point for me, the signage is 25 feet into the junction. I've made that turn over 50 times in the past to get to a property I lived in within that now LTN, hence my understanding of the reason for the change. But a sign needs to be AT the road entrance. Sure, a still photo shows the signs clearly but if you don't know it is there before you turn, you are upon it immediately on entering the road and it would be dangerous to back out into the cycle lane. Also, you will see from your first photo that the incorrectly positioned signs are obscured by the tree on approach. If you drive you will understand these points. With regard to speed, I never exceed the limit and one cannot in London anyway, with all the cameras - which I applaud. Put this standard sign at the entrance and the council would not be fining people, it would be clear. If it needs to say Except Cycles and Emergency Vehicles, fine, but don't victimise the general road-user.

 

[liquidindian]

Lambeth Council

It's not Lambeth Council that decides the appeal.

 

[liquidindian]

I don't think it's anyone here either.

 

[Tulster218]

You just made my point for me, the signage is 25 feet into the junction [...]

I'm sure you understood it properly, but according to a YouGov poll, almost half of motorists don't even understand that sign:

HALF OF DRIVERS DO NOT UNDERSTAND LOW TRAFFIC NEIGHBOURHOOD SIGNAGE, NEW RESEARCH SHOWS
· New polling by #BikeIsBest, conducted by YouGov, shows that 50% of drivers do not understand meaning of “No Motor Vehicles” sign, in use since 1964
· 29% of drivers thought the sign meant cars and motorcycles only (no trucks allowed), 10% of drivers said the sign did not represent any of the options given or they didn’t know

#BIKEISBEST - sign our ’Share the road’ petition to support projects that will help everyone cycle and walk more.

 

[Cat Fan]

Valley road runs pretty much parallel to the A23 so I imagine many are using it to avoid that road

Instead of imagining whatever suits your point of view, it would be better if you used evidence and data.

Streatham Hill LTN monitoring report showed an increase in car traffic on boundary roads including 26% increase on LCR and over 50% increase on Leigham Vale. It would be very strange indeed if Streatham Vale LTN didn't have the same effect. In fact traffic was up on all boundary roads including S Circular, and they didn't measure A23 for some reason so they may have undercounted the increase.

I expect to see a lot of added pressure on the junctions between A23 and Streatham common North, A23 and S Circular, A23 and LCR and LCR and Streatham common North. In the long run it will hopefully make more people walk/cycle but it's disingenuous to say that LTNs have achieved reductions in traffic across the board.

That monitoring report was also a strange one because cycling increased by 50% both inside and outside the LTN. Suggests either that the baseline is wrong or the LTN has had no impact on increasing cycling. Either way not particularly encouraging.

 

[teuchter]

they didn't measure A23 for some reason

Isn't that what this is, which shows traffic essentially unchanged?



It's also mentioned earlier in the same document where they explain how they "normalised" the data.

https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2021-11/Streatham%20Hill%20LTN%20SYSTRA%20Stage%202%20Appendices.pdf

 

[sparkybird]

Instead of imagining whatever suits your point of view, it would be better if you used evidence and data.

Streatham Hill LTN monitoring report showed an increase in car traffic on boundary roads including 26% increase on LCR and over 50% increase on Leigham Vale. It would be very strange indeed if Streatham Vale LTN didn't have the same effect. In fact traffic was up on all boundary roads including S Circular, and they didn't measure A23 for some reason so they may have undercounted the increase.

I expect to see a lot of added pressure on the junctions between A23 and Streatham common North, A23 and S Circular, A23 and LCR and LCR and Streatham common North. In the long run it will hopefully make more people walk/cycle but it's disingenuous to say that LTNs have achieved reductions in traffic across the board.

That monitoring report was also a strange one because cycling increased by 50% both inside and outside the LTN. Suggests either that the baseline is wrong or the LTN has had no impact on increasing cycling. Either way not particularly encouraging.

I'm not imagining anything to suit my point of view thanks. Since the Streatham Wells LTN is not in place yet, there is no data. Although you seem to be imagining that it will be the same as Streatham Hill, to suit your point of view. Streatham Vale is a different area BTW, with no plans currently for an LTN as far as I know.
Anyway my point about Valley Road being parallel to the A23 and so is massively used as an alternative still stands.
The new LTN is a trial, let's see what the results are. And let's give drivers more than 5 minutes to change their behaviour.
I'd be interested to hear your alternatives to reduce the negative impacts of drivers in our neighbourhoods if LTNs are not the answer?

 

[thebackrow]

I don't think it's anyone here either.

It's also not Lambeth Council who decide what the correct signage is for a section of road - that's the DfT and the signage used for LTN filters is common across London. The 'no motor vehicles' sign (which was introduced in the 1960's) is the right one.

Now if you were arguing that the filters should physically prevent motor vehicles from driving through I'd fully agree with you. But those opposed to LTNs are extremely concerned about emergency services being unobstructed (but only when it's due to a cycleway or LTN, not the vast bulk of delays caused by volume of traffic or illegally/badly parked vehicles) so the ANPR filters are in large part a response to their lobbying.

 

[thebackrow]

It's also not Lambeth Council who decide what the correct signage is for a section of road - that's the DfT and the signage used for LTN filters is common across London. The 'no motor vehicles' sign (which was introduced in the 1960's) is the right one.

Now if you were arguing that the filters should physically prevent motor vehicles from driving through I'd fully agree with you. But those opposed to LTNs are extremely concerned about emergency services being unobstructed (but only when it's due to a cycleway or LTN, not the vast bulk of delays caused by volume of traffic or illegally/badly parked vehicles) so the ANPR filters are in large part a response to their lobbying.

and today in "LTNs delay buses"

 

[BigTom]

It's not a zebra crossing. If you're approaching a junction such that you can't look out for signage and pedestrians at the same time, you must be going too fast. It's not an either or. The no left turn sign is perfectly clear.

View attachment 359480

And you would see all this:

View attachment 359482

At the moment before you actually turn left.

Why isn't the LTN block and therefore signage at the entrance to the road here? Is there a reason for it to be set back like that, the ones round me are all essentially on the junctions (but not anpr though i don't know why that would make a difference).

Looks like enough space to do a three point turn if you do go down there though, is that not the case? Would you have to back out across the cycle lane if you were in a car?

 

[teuchter]

Why isn't the LTN block and therefore signage at the entrance to the road here? Is there a reason for it to be set back like that, the ones round me are all essentially on the junctions (but not anpr though i don't know why that would make a difference).

Maybe to do with visibility for emerging vehicles? So they can see pedestrians/cyclists?
Also, if this is one where some people might have exemptions, maybe it's so that someone legitimately turning in here can have somewhere to wait if another vehicle is emerging?
That's just speculation, I'm not a road engineer.

 

[Agent Sparrow]

I don’t know that particular filter but I see motorists driving through them even now with clear stop signs.

Motorbikes near us just go on the pavement to get round it, sometimes when you’re walking on it yourself

It’s a shame they can’t track how they’ve impacted individual’s driving behaviours over time - obviously that would be horribly intrusive and near impossible. But my feeling is that for a group of drivers it’s made absolutely no difference. Discounting the more obvious groups who should be exempt, I would really like to know how to reduce those people’s car usage.

This is why I think talking about technical car owners is a bit of a red herring. There’s a huge difference in how often car owners use their motorised transport. It’s the ones who regularly use cars who are the main problem, a bit like frequent versus occasional flyers on planes.

 

[edcraw]

Maybe to do with visibility for emerging vehicles? So they can see pedestrians/cyclists?
Also, if this is one where some people might have exemptions, maybe it's so that someone legitimately turning in here can have somewhere to wait if another vehicle is emerging?
That's just speculation, I'm not a road engineer.

Might be to give enough room for fire engines or bin lorries to go through easily.

Can’t really see what the problem is. Understand that some might not be familiar with the signage but as it’s in the Highway Code ignores hardly an excuse and surely a sign at how easy it is for anyone to drive.

 

[alex_]

LTNs appear not to push traffic on to boundary roads, London study finds

Exclusive: number of motor vehicles in 46 low-traffic neighbourhoods studied also significantly reduced

www.theguardian.com

Apparently LTNs don’t lead to significant rises in boundary road traffic.

And I suppose ironically if the onesies hadn’t spent so much time destroying the equipment to collect data, there might be more data to prove that they were right/wrong.

 

[teuchter]

LTNs appear not to push traffic on to boundary roads, London study finds

Exclusive: number of motor vehicles in 46 low-traffic neighbourhoods studied also significantly reduced

www.theguardian.com

Apparently LTNs don’t lead to significant rises in boundary road traffic.

And I suppose ironically if the onesies hadn’t spent so much time destroying the equipment to collect data, there might be more data to prove that they were right/wrong.

It's by the same people who have done all the other studies - it's not that I dispute the results but it would be good to see some similar work done by completely different institutions. The antis of course say the group that produces these studies is biased.

 

[alex_]

It's by the same people who have done all the other studies - it's not that I dispute the results but it would be good to see some similar work done by completely different institutions. The antis of course say the group that produces these studies is biased.

I’m sure they’d say that about anyone who produces results they don’t like though.

 

[liquidindian]

It's by the same people who have done all the other studies - it's not that I dispute the results but it would be good to see some similar work done by completely different institutions. The antis of course say the group that produces these studies is biased.

Maybe the Together Declaration and the Alliance of British Drivers can commission Right Said Fred to look into it.

 

[teuchter]

I’m sure they’d say that about anyone who produces results they don’t like though.

Yeah.

However, in the longer term, for the benefit of furthering the state of knowledge in general, I hope that all the data from London schemes can be used in other studies, for example comparing them with implementations in other countries and examining differences in detail that do or don't work better. Things like exemptions for residents, and so on.

 

[teuchter]

The other thing is that a lot of the monitoring that councils carry out is patchy and a bit shonky, leaving a lot of room for interpretation and claims that can't be proven or disproven. It seems to me that it would be really beneficial to have a few schemes that are really properly monitored - that is with loads of monitoring points, that record everything consistently, types of vehicle, speed of flow, and so on. And probably including some monitoring beyond the immediate boundary roads to understand what the displacement effects are, if any, in surrounding areas. Of course all this would be expensive to do, but with sufficient interest (ie. beyond the scope of an individual borough) in doing such a study maybe the funding could be found.

 

[thebackrow]

It's by the same people who have done all the other studies - it's not that I dispute the results but it would be good to see some similar work done by completely different institutions. The antis of course say the group that produces these studies is biased.

The alternative reading of this is that the research is by the leading institution in the UK working in this area.

There are a fairly small number of universities offering transport planning degrees - but traffic reduction/active travel is a particular study within wider transport planning and the 'active travel academy' is at the University of Westminster. I'm pretty certain both UCL and Imperial (the other two London universities) have produced research as well. Most of this activity has been in London (certainly for that which has been in place for long enough to study) so not surprising it's focused here.

If it was other universities that had produced most of it they'd be casting shade on them for not being local or not being the specialists in the field. Instead we get shade cast because someone who has built their career on the study of active travel believes it's a good thing and has had involvement with organisations that are also interested in the field in some way.

The same way they try to cast shade on the consultancies "receiving millions" to deliver these projects for councils (who have outsourced most work on nearly everything in recent decades) - looking at the job ads, no-one is getting rich working for Sustrans Jobs and career vacancies