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

[teuchter]

The tories aren't happy. The article is mostly nonsense of course. They even manage to get Oval in the wrong borough.

Sadiq Khan is wrecking London’s revival with an ideological war on motorists

The mayor is squeezing drivers for cash and damaging the capital to fill the black hole in London's finances

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[sleaterkinney]

Some kickback on the Oval scheme

Lambeth residents voice their anger at Oval Triangle Low Traffic Neighbourhood

Local residents have voiced their anger at the Oval Triangle Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) scheme, which has been pushed through by Lambeth Council as part of emergency COVID-19 legislation. A st…

www.brixtonbuzz.com

There's a One Dulwich group set up to oppose the Dulwich LTN as well, a whole other level of entitlement going on there. I think if the Lambeth LTNs delayed a few Dulwich residents by 5 mins they would be long gone by now.

 

[editor]

There's a One Dulwich group set up to oppose the Dulwich LTN as well, a whole other level of entitlement going on there. I think if the Lambeth LTNs delayed a few Dulwich residents by 5 mins they would be long gone by now.

I should be publishing a counter point to this soon from some of the people behind the scheme.

 

[newbie]

But why do we keep talking about everything from the point of view of car-owning residents, either within the LN zone or in adjacent neighbourhoods?

Worth remembering the schemes restrict motorcycles as well as cars and commercial vehicles.

Because it's them (along with delivery & cab drivers) and their entirely legal and reasonable behaviour that are being targetted*. Unlawful and unreasonable driver behaviour is being used as an excuse for that, of course, but other initiatives would be deployed if bad driving was the real focus, from enforcement through traffic calming to play nicely nudging.

I guess you'll have caniptions about the word 'reasonable' but while you and other ideologues may disapprove you obviously haven't persuaded everyone else you're right, plenty of other Londoners living on most London streets still decide to drive locally if they want to.





btw I looked it up. Bearing in mind schools are shut, at school home time today Google Maps says getting back from Stockwell Primary to Sandmere Road takes 4 minutes driving the back way, which is now forbidden. Done legally it takes 9 min via Landor Road, almost half of which is getting from the No Entry at Sandmere round to Solon to do the last bit, or 14 minutes via Brixton and round St Matthews; By foot, under the railway, is 14 minutes. By bus to Clapham North and walk is 19 mins or it's 15 minutes round St Matthews. On that basis it's still quicker to drive, especially if the whole length of Landor is clear ( ) but whichever way it's done the round trip is much longer.



* well and that this is part of the biggest city wide, top down, back of a fag packet social engineering experiment I've ever seen close up and I'm finding it fascinating.

 

[teuchter]

There's a One Dulwich group set up to oppose the Dulwich LTN as well, a whole other level of entitlement going on there. I think if the Lambeth LTNs delayed a few Dulwich residents by 5 mins they would be long gone by now.

Well, that's interesting that there is "One Oval" and also "One Dulwich".

"One Oval" seem to have appeared within the last few weeks and claim to be a "network" of local residents including cyclists etc etc, and they claim to want "more cycling" and "more walking" and "cleaner air" and so on, but they can't be identified as any people in particular.

That they genuinely represent a group of residents who want things to change but just not in quite this way, would be more convincing if they could present themselves as people who've been pushing for "more cycling" and "more walking" and "cleaner air" in some way previous to all this. Otherwise they look rather like a reactionary operation just set up for this purpose. They seem to be good at their PR stuff anyway, with their professional looking website, and managing to get their views presented in several local news outlets whilst remaining essentially anonymous.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Worth remembering the schemes restrict motorcycles as well as cars and commercial vehicles.

Because it's them (along with delivery & cab drivers) and their entirely legal and reasonable behaviour that are being targetted*. Unlawful and unreasonable driver behaviour is being used as an excuse for that, of course, but other initiatives would be deployed if bad driving was the real focus, from enforcement through traffic calming to play nicely nudging.

I guess you'll have caniptions about the word 'reasonable' but while you and other ideologues may disapprove you obviously haven't persuaded everyone else you're right, plenty of other Londoners living on most London streets still decide to drive locally if they want to*

The excuse is cleaner air in the middle of a pandemic affecting the respiratory system.

 

[Gramsci]

The justification would rely largely on the bigger picture - that these kinds of measures being gradually adopted across London are part of a strategy to encourage less driving in general.

But why do we keep talking about everything from the point of view of car-owning residents, either within the LN zone or in adjacent neighbourhoods? For a non car-owner in an adjacent neighbourhood, their car owning neighbour's rat run route now being blocked is not an issue. If their car owning neighbour uses their car for fewer journeys as a result then that's a benefit for them. And a non car owner on the "other side of Acre Lane" might well be one of the people who currently walks or cycles through the Ferndale area, and whose journey will hopefully be improved as a result of there being less traffic in that area.

Anyway, it seems that we actually agree that giving exemptions to residents within the zones is not a "win-win" solution and I would argue against it.

As a non car owning cyclists I also appreciate some of my neighbours need to use cars. They need to be able to park and have access. I see a real "Liveable Neighbourhood" as one where car owners and non car owners can all get along.

I don't think great my neighbour is having a hard time now. I also care about my neighbours.

So I thiink its perfectly reasonable if the Liveable Neighbourhood is to mean anything in practise that residents living in these Council designated LNs should have exemptions.

Its not about win win or win lose its about the LN meaning somethng in practise.

 

[sleaterkinney]

As a non car owning cyclists I also appreciate some of my neighbours need to use cars. They need to be able to park and have access. I see a real "Liveable Neighbourhood" as one where car owners and non car owners can all get along.

There is no restriction on parking and any property will still be accessible as part of the LTN. Nobody is banning car ownership.

 

[Gramsci]

There is no restriction on parking and any property will still be accessible as part of the LTN. Nobody is banning car ownership.

That is not what Im talking about.

 

[Gramsci]

There is no restriction on parking and any property will still be accessible as part of the LTN. Nobody is banning car ownership.

What Im saying is this.

As ANPR technology is going to be used residents in a LN should be able to register and it not apply to them.

 

[editor]

The excuse is cleaner air in the middle of a pandemic affecting the respiratory system.

Sort of seems academic when the main shopping street in Brixton remains heavily polluted and it looks likely that this scheme will make other streets considerably busier too.

 

[newbie]

The excuse is cleaner air in the middle of a pandemic affecting the respiratory system.

The immediate legal excuse is, with political cover from the green pins on the map, although few mention cleaner air, they're mostly about too much traffic and bad driving.

How will air quality improvement in a few residential areas help combat the virus?

Bear in mind pollution isn't concentrated in relatively quiet residential streets, it's much greater on and near the busier roads. LTNs inevitably push traffic onto those roads, it can't all evaporate. The people who sit and breathe in buses, who walk, shop, run or cycle and particularly those who live or work on busy roads will be exposed to more pollution (and thus possible greater virus impact) as a result of these schemes.


PM10


NO2



from https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/pcc-air-quality-action-plan-2017-2022.pdf

 

[teuchter]

Actually the "immediate legal excuse" is more to do with encouraging walking and cycling as modes of transport in the context of a pandemic where there's likely a benefit to keeping levels of crowding on buses and trains down as much as possible.

 

[sleaterkinney]

The immediate legal excuse is, with political cover from the green pins on the map, although few mention cleaner air, they're mostly about too much traffic and bad driving.

How will air quality improvement in a few residential areas help combat the virus?

Bear in mind pollution isn't concentrated in relatively quiet residential streets, it's much greater on and near the busier roads. LTNs inevitably push traffic onto those roads, it can't all evaporate. The people who sit and breathe in buses, who walk, shop, run or cycle and particularly those who live or work on busy roads will be exposed to more pollution (and thus possible greater virus impact) as a result of these schemes.

The whole point is to reduce the amount of cars on the road, make it easier to have other forms of transport. If you want less pollution then great, lets do more on that as well.

It's not a problem where we have x number of cars and we have to plan around them, traffic and transport change all the time - congestion charge, crossrail etc.

 

[Big Bertha]

Should increase congestion charge until number of cars drops to a level where pollution levels are acceptable.

 

[newbie]

Actually the "immediate legal excuse" is more to do with encouraging walking and cycling as modes of transport in the context of a pandemic where there's likely a benefit to keeping levels of crowding on buses and trains down as much as possible.

So pandemic emergency provisions have been used to hurriedly implement LTNs to reduce bus crowding? Yet just a few posts back you proposed people take the bus to get their child to school, a 15-20 minute bus journey rather than their previous 4 minute drive, 4 times a day.

Of course you did, the script has always proposed take the bus as an active travel ingredient, recognising that walking and cycling aren't appropriate for every person or every journey. And you're right, they will.

Insiders will hopefully walk or cycle to schools, the physio or wherever as replacements for driving within local streets. If they don't they're advised to use a bus. Their inside-the-zone motor journey must evaporate, though of course they'll still need to get there and back. So in the longer term, December say, what proportion of previously school run adults are going to walk under the bridges 4 times a day, every day? For every hyperlocal journey that isn't walked or cycled and hasn't conveniently not been made at all, there's going to be displacement onto the perimeter and through roads, either by car or by bus. The same is true of journeys further afield, for non cyclists the only way to make the journey other than their car is the bus.

Of course some journeys have to be made by vehicle. Deliveries, Uber, trades, disabled, ferrying stuff won't evaporate much at all, and they'll all be forced back and forth round the perimeter as well. Perimeter and through roads will take all the pressure and clog up further, leading to more idling fumes and slower buses.

Future schemes on both sides of Brixton Hill will funnel into exactly the same road and bus pinch point at the Brixton crossroads..

So as a policy to concentrate pollution on the main roads and increase pressure on the buses this should all work well.

Is that really the most appropriate pandemic response?

 

[alex_]

Should increase congestion charge until number of cars drops to a level where pollution levels are acceptable.

“Roads are only for rich people” interesting strategy.

 

[newbie]

The whole point is to reduce the amount of cars on the road, make it easier to have other forms of transport. If you want less pollution then great, lets do more on that as well.

It's not a problem where we have x number of cars and we have to plan around them, traffic and transport change all the time - congestion charge, crossrail etc.

Surely the point of pandemic response should be virus related? Or did you mean the longer term objective these LTNs were originally designed around, back when encouraging people onto buses and proper consultation and planning were normal?

 

[sleaterkinney]

Surely the point of pandemic response should be virus related? Or did you mean the longer term objective these LTNs were originally designed around, back when encouraging people onto buses and proper consultation and planning were normal?

What do you mean by virus related?. Is the furlough virus related?. How long do you think this pandemic response will go on for?.

When was this normal proper consultation you are talking about happening?. Look at the rules for the upcoming emissions zone, they're meaningless - that's where consultation takes you - the status quo.

 

[newbie]

I know I keep going on about the school run from sandmere Road to Stockwell primary, but the reality of the walk bears thinking about.

Start here, walk your children and maybe push your buggy or have a toddler on reins to and from school. Hobble or drive your mobility scooter to the physio. Hurry along to or from your busy life while all that's going on, or cycle through. I don't see the brochure.

 

[newbie]

What do you mean by virus related?. Is the furlough virus related?. How long do you think this pandemic response will go on for?.

When was this normal proper consultation you are talking about happening?. Look at the rules for the upcoming emissions zone, they're meaningless - that's where consultation takes you - the status quo.

Sorry, trying to avoid being over wordy doesn't work.

I meant that the 'whole point' right now in the pandemic, should be explicitly to impede the spread of the virus, through social distancing including less crowded buses and perhaps to increase individual ability to fight it off through cleaner air.

Widening pavements is virus related, less crowded buses is virus related, better cycling provision where it's needed is virus related. Encouraging car use because it improves social distancing was initially a virus related response.

I was trying to make the distinction that reducing the amount of cars on the road is a separate objective and at odds with less crowded buses.

Like cycling, driving provides better social distancing than using the bus or walking. Reducing the amount of cars on the road will push people together.


And no, that's not a demand for more cars on the road, it's simply about the logic of claiming these LTNs are part of the pandemic response rather than a longer term political objective that's being forced through as pandemic policy.

 

[newbie]

When was this normal proper consultation you are talking about happening?. Look at the rules for the upcoming emissions zone, they're meaningless - that's where consultation takes you - the status quo.

Planning and consultation is about reconciling all sorts of factors and players and trying to reach objectives- in this case around climate change/traffic- in the face of reality. Plans gets mired because there are no easy answers and no answers at all that will keep everyone happy. None the less, brochures are printed and schemes implemented. The status quo is always changing and people respond accordingly.

This brochure was written with pre-pandemic objectives, and considered individual areas separately. As pandemic policy it's now a much bigger proposition, and has been rolled out twice now in Brixton with two more to come aiui. The scale of this pandemic LTN plan is wholly new, it's being done in a massive hurry, and done without much public planning and consultation. So I guess we'll find out if the perfectly understandable desire to cut through red tape and autocratically impose is a good idea or not. It's going to be a bumpy ride, I really hope it delivers on the promises.

 

[teuchter]

I know I keep going on about the school run from sandmere Road to Stockwell primary, but the reality of the walk bears thinking about.

Start here, walk your children and maybe push your buggy or have a toddler on reins to and from school. Hobble or drive your mobility scooter to the physio. Hurry along to or from your busy life while all that's going on, or cycle through. I don't see the brochure.

That's the reality for the majority of people, who don't have a car, yes. What's your point?

 

[sleaterkinney]

I was trying to make the distinction that reducing the amount of cars on the road is a separate objective and at odds with less crowded buses.

Like cycling, driving provides better social distancing than using the bus or walking. Reducing the amount of cars on the road will push people together.


And no, that's not a demand for more cars on the road, it's simply about the logic of claiming these LTNs are part of the pandemic response rather than a longer term political objective that's being forced through as pandemic policy.

Yeah, but there isn’t the amount of road space or parking to cope with increased driving, the place I work has about 5 spaces for example, for hundreds of people, so why think this is part of a solution?

 

[8ball]

“Roads are only for rich people” interesting strategy.

These types of measures are usually well-supported when it comes to regressive taxes. Nice to have a change.

 

[editor]

Oval LTN update:

Save Oval Streets – residents state their support for the Oval Triangle Low Traffic Neighbourhood

Yesterday, we ran a statement from the OneOval resident’s group which was highly critical of the Oval Triangle Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) scheme. Although the article brought up many common co…

www.brixtonbuzz.com

 

[Crispy]

I know I keep going on about the school run from sandmere Road to Stockwell primary, but the reality of the walk bears thinking about.
Start here, walk your children and maybe push your buggy or have a toddler on reins to and from school. Hobble or drive your mobility scooter to the physio. Hurry along to or from your busy life while all that's going on, or cycle through. I don't see the brochure.

This is the same distance (~1.2km) that I live from my daughter's primary school and it's a totally reasonable walk with toddler or buggy in tow. A ridiculously short distance to drive.

 

[teuchter]

Thought I'd record some of the traffic chaos caused by the Oval and Railton LN schemes, as I returned home from town this evening. They range between about 4.30 and 4.45pm so the early part of evening rush hour.

The bit between Vauxhall and Kennington (Harleyford Rd)




The junction by Oval Tube station

 

[teuchter]

Now the chaos of traffic displaced from Railton Rd:

Effra Road:



Brixton Water Lane:



Dulwich Rd:








Dulwich Rd at Herne Hill Jn:

 

[Rushy]

Now the chaos of traffic displaced from Railton Rd:

Effra Road:

View attachment 223148

Brixton Water Lane:

View attachment 223152

Dulwich Rd:



View attachment 223151


View attachment 223155

Dulwich Rd at Herne Hill Jn:

View attachment 223154

I see what you mean. I don't think there is any suggestion that the LTNs are responsible for such quiet main roads. So it does rather beg the question ... are the LTNs actually necessary?