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

[Cat Fan]

Some journeys will be displaced - people will keep driving but go a different route, either onto the new boundary roads or by taking a totally different route through a different area.

Some car journeys will evaporate through a number of mechanisms:
Some people will switch a journey to public transport, especially in London.
Some people will start cycling (or scooting or similar) a journey
Some people will start walking a journey

All your points make sense and are a good example of LTNs working well.

I just don't think the specific Streatham Wells LTN we have been talking about is going to work well.

The neighbouring Streatham Hill LTN post implementation report showed a large amount of displacement and not much increase in cycling

There are already school streets in place for the local schools so LTNs don't really offer much new there.

You mention on street parking is gone in your example. There is a ton of legal and illegal on street parking on Leigham Court road (and speed bumps and pot holes) and this the road taking all the traffic displacement, it's wedged between two largeish LTNs now.

I would support the LTN more if they took away all the parking on LCR. It's not joined up thinking by Lambeth. And they are perhaps scared of a big backlash from everyone who lives on the road or goes to nursery/school there.

 

[Cat Fan]

If stopping rat running causes that many issues then we really are fucked. We shouldn’t have to rely on minor roads to take extra traffic. People have built there lives around car usage - it’ll take a while for this to adjust but it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done.

I broadly agree but I think the latest LTN has been poorly implemented and it's lost a lot of goodwill. Why could they not delay for a few days while Thames water dug up the road for example?

And a lot of people are complaining the signage is poor. Some locals are going out with handmade signs to help direct traffic.

 

[Winot]

I broadly agree but I think the latest LTN has been poorly implemented and it's lost a lot of goodwill. Why could they not delay for a few days while Thames water dug up the road for example?

AFAIK the Thames Water works were emergency and therefore unexpected.

 

[Crispy]

100% LCR really should have no parking. The majority of premises already have their own.
I'm on the 417 most weekends - should I budget additional time?

 

[Cat Fan]

AFAIK the Thames Water works were emergency and therefore unexpected.

Yes but that doesn't explain why implementation couldn't be put back 1 week

 

[sparkybird]

Local social media has been full of negativity of late, here's a bit of positive stuff for balance. So very sad that many who support the LTN are not speaking up due to fear of reprisals ‘Silent majority’ hails success of Streatham LTN (Low Traffic neighbourhood)scheme

 

[alex_]

Local social media has been full of negativity of late, here's a bit of positive stuff for balance. So very sad that many who support the LTN are not speaking up due to fear of reprisals ‘Silent majority’ hails success of Streatham LTN (Low Traffic neighbourhood)scheme

That’ll troll the knobheads.

 

[edcraw]

Local social media has been full of negativity of late, here's a bit of positive stuff for balance. So very sad that many who support the LTN are not speaking up due to fear of reprisals ‘Silent majority’ hails success of Streatham LTN (Low Traffic neighbourhood)scheme

The anti WhatsApp group is going mad at your “bias” for publishing this editor!!

 

[sparkybird]

That’ll troll the knobheads.

I'm not bothered about them, haters always going to hate - it's more to show to those unwilling to speak up in support for fear, that there are others!

 

[PlasT]

I’ve no doubt it is nice for some people living within the LTN.

But that doesn’t mean it’s the right policy if it has a detrimental effect on the overall transport system in the wider area. Which is the point of the trial (I hope)

 

[sparkybird]

I’ve no doubt it is nice for some people living within the LTN.

But that doesn’t mean it’s the right policy if it has a detrimental effect on the overall transport system in the wider area. Which is the point of the trial (I hope)

Indeed - that is the point of the trial - which has been running for less than 3 weeks out of 18 months, with the added bonus of roadworks on all three surrounding main roads. Changes to long term (driving) habits take time. If even 10-20% of car journeys can be swapped out, it will make life much better for those who have no other choice but to drive.

 

[alex_]

Indeed - that is the point of the trial - which has been running for less than 3 weeks out of 18 months, with the added bonus of roadworks on all three surrounding main roads. Changes to long term (driving) habits take time. If even 10-20% of car journeys can be swapped out, it will make life much better for those who have no other choice but to drive.

It’ll make it easier for those who drive as well.

Alex

 

[editor]

Lib Dems have weighed into the argument: LTNs: “Publish the evidence and listen to residents”, say Lambeth Lib Dems

 

[Cat Fan]

Indeed - that is the point of the trial - which has been running for less than 3 weeks out of 18 months, with the added bonus of roadworks on all three surrounding main roads. Changes to long term (driving) habits take time. If even 10-20% of car journeys can be swapped out, it will make life much better for those who have no other choice but to drive.

No, the point of the trial is to flush out any operational issues prior to making it permanent.

It's council policy to implement LTNs so the vote to make it permanent at the end of the trial is a formality.

 

[sparkybird]

No, the point of the trial is to flush out any operational issues prior to making it permanent.

It's council policy to implement LTNs so the vote to make it permanent at the end of the trial is a formality.

Oh ok, that's not what I understood from a meeting with officers. Can you link to the council policy and process regarding the trial?

 

[Cat Fan]

Oh ok, that's not what I understood from a meeting with officers. Can you link to the council policy and process regarding the trial?

The councillors were all elected on a platform to implement LTNs, it's part of the clean air strategy. So they're going to implement irrespective of whether people are majority in favour or not, because that's what we elected them to do. It's democracy.

 

[Cat Fan]

Lib Dems have weighed into the argument: LTNs: “Publish the evidence and listen to residents”, say Lambeth Lib Dems

In a recent consultation about another LTN, in Streatham Hill, the majority of residents within the zone (57.4%) said that they did not believe the introduction of the LTN had been a positive change.

When was this consultation and where can I see it? I'm actually surprised at this result.

Edit: sounds a bit dodgy to report it this way because it's important to know how many were in favour/neutral/not in favour.

 

[sparkybird]

The councillors were all elected on a platform to implement LTNs, it's part of the clean air strategy. So they're going to implement irrespective of whether people are majority in favour or not, because that's what we elected them to do. It's democracy.

Ah I see, that's a bit different from what you originally said. The council has always made it very clear that the decision to have/keep LTNs is not a referendum, but rather they will look at the data around reducing car use. This makes sense to me, since we all know what a disaster referendums can be.

 

[liquidindian]

In a recent consultation about another LTN, in Streatham Hill, the majority of residents within the zone (57.4%) said that they did not believe the introduction of the LTN had been a positive change.

Won't that be respondents rather than residents? It says respondents in the next paragraph. Important distinction IMO.

 

[Cat Fan]

Won't that be respondents rather than residents? It says respondents in the next paragraph. Important distinction IMO.

What I mean is say 40% say "positive", 50% say "don't know" and 10% say "negative", the Lib Dems can then say "60% don't believe it's positive" even though 4 times as many people say it's positive than negative.

Lib Dems are known for their dodgy bar charts and misleading stats, sadly.

 

[thebackrow]

The councillors were all elected on a platform to implement LTNs, it's part of the clean air strategy. So they're going to implement irrespective of whether people are majority in favour or not, because that's what we elected them to do. It's democracy.

Absolutely. You could usefully remind that to the ex-LibDem councillor in Streatham Wells who's been in the press, and the failed tory candidate Neil Salt (chair of 'independent and neutral' StreathamAction's transport committee) both of whom have repeatedly claimed the no-one knew about the Streatham Wells LTN, despite it being announced in 2020, and the engagement having started before the election, and the neighbouring Streatham Hill LTN (where labour councillors were returned) and all the others claiming this is 'undemocratic'.

These aren't a done deal - if it genuinely fails to meet it's objectives once its had sufficient time for travel habits to change then I don't think it would go ahead (or at least not without changes). Buses are more important in the Wells area so that might be something that needs tweaking to give them more priority.

The anti's continually claim that all of the boundary roads are gridlocked 24/7, and that buses are hopelessly delayed, but that's clearly not the case for the LTNs that have been made permanent so far. I think there are slightly longer queues on some roads at peak times but it does only seem to be at peak times, and large areas and huge numbers of people have seen real improvements to their streets. But if I walk up Bedford Road when it's busy the vast majority of traffic is single occupancy private cars - driving towards or away from central London on a route the follows a tube line.

 

[thebackrow]

What I mean is say 40% say "positive", 50% say "don't know" and 10% say "negative", the Lib Dems can then say "60% don't believe it's positive" even though 4 times as many people say it's positive than negative.

Lib Dems are known for their dodgy bar charts and misleading stats, sadly.

I think this is up to date. Consultations can be easily gamed and a fairly large chunk of people are neutral. For whatever reason presumably they don't feel it affects them, or that it has pros and cons that net out.

they're calling for fortnightly air quality measurements - utterly pointless as there are so many external influences over air quality. It's something you can only track over years/

 

[lang rabbie]

Local social media has been full of negativity of late, here's a bit of positive stuff for balance. So very sad that many who support the LTN are not speaking up due to fear of reprisals ‘Silent majority’ hails success of Streatham LTN (Low Traffic neighbourhood)scheme

Sadly, the venomous exchanges on social media have come from both "sides", with people who have only raised concerns about disruption to bus journeys and travel to SEND schools also being trolled by pro-LTN activists with no Lambeth connection.

 

[Hollis]

Some car journeys will evaporate through a number of mechanisms:
Some people will switch a journey to public transport, especially in London.
Some people will start cycling (or scooting or similar) a journey
Some people will start walking a journey

Some journeys will simply disappear and not be made at all, although I suspect this is a very small effect compared to changing modes of transport. It's a bigger effect if you consider measures that make leisure driving less attractive such as increased fuel costs or congestion charging.

For me this leaves two big questions:
1) What is the proportion of displacement vs evaporation
2) What is the effect of displacement on the locations that traffic is displaced to

The answer to 1) is consistently that there is more evaporation than displacement, the answer to 2) is much more contentious.

I live in Birmingham in an area where an LTN has been put in place and one of the biggest effects is a drop in school runs being done by car / increase in walking & cycling, especially at secondary schools. The LTN does enough to shift the convenience factor away from cars and towards walking and cycling for local residents, which in turn takes a lot of pressure off the main roads during rush hour. Additionally, the high street flows better now because the side roads are blocked and there aren't people turning in/out of those side roads, and the on street parking also largely went which has helped massively. So even if traffic volume has increased on that road, traffic flow has improved as a result of the LTN stopping people turning in/out of side roads (and parking spaces though the removal of those isn't strictly LTN I suppose but was/is part of the same planning).

See in terms of evaportion v displacement, I think a large factor will be the proportion of through traffic relative to journeys from those inside the LTN. An LTN has been put in in Haringey with low car ownership.. it was put in because the high volume of rat-running from outside. The main impact is that traffic has just been displaced into the surrounding area - though outside the data points in the evaluation which are literally just on the immediate boundary roads. It was also actually planned in part - that the boundary roads would become so congested that traffic would reroute further afield (from council minutes). So the traffic has rerouted.. but it doesn't just drive along main roads but it/waze etc reroutes to other residential roads. I'd say my roads has had a 100% increase in traffic since the LTN - with zero sign of it reducing. It's now bordering on uncycleable in the mornings.

 

[Cat Fan]

See in terms of evaportion v displacement, I think a large factor will be the proportion of through traffic relative to journeys from those inside the LTN.

Yeah, exactly this

 

[BigTom]

See in terms of evaportion v displacement, I think a large factor will be the proportion of through traffic relative to journeys from those inside the LTN. An LTN has been put in in Haringey with low car ownership.. it was put in because the high volume of rat-running from outside. The main impact is that traffic has just been displaced into the surrounding area - though outside the data points in the evaluation which are literally just on the immediate boundary roads. It was also actually planned in part - that the boundary roads would become so congested that traffic would reroute further afield (from council minutes). So the traffic has rerouted.. but it doesn't just drive along main roads but it/waze etc reroutes to other residential roads. I'd say my roads has had a 100% increase in traffic since the LTN - with zero sign of it reducing. It's now bordering on uncycleable in the mornings.

yeah, absolutely, your quote cut off the first line where I said traffic would be displaced through people driving through completely different areas.

re: the bolded bit, if you are referring to smaller roads in areas without LTNs, this is why you then need to keep building LTNs in other areas - you push the traffic around but each time reducing it a bit overall. If things are improving at a macro level then you need to look at the micro level to see how to resolve the problems that have been caused/increased when improving at the macro level, and with other residential roads I think the LTN solution is pretty solid.

The biggest problem I think is whether the roads that become boundary roads are actually suitable to be boundary roads or not. If they are also victorian/edwardian residential roads, they probably aren't very well suited to it. When you look at modern housing estate designs the boundary roads tend to have big green verges or service roads where they are residential, if built now should have proper segregated cycle lanes too. Would not have schools directly on them. Can't do that with older roads that become boundary roads.

If you can't resolve problems at the micro level, it might not be worth the gains at the macro level. Judgement call here that can be tough to make and is very dependent on local knowledge so I don't really want to comment on your specific situation too heavily, I can understand the macro end of this but not the micro

 

[Hollis]

yeah, absolutely, your quote cut off the first line where I said traffic would be displaced through people driving through completely different areas.

re: the bolded bit, if you are referring to smaller roads in areas without LTNs, this is why you then need to keep building LTNs in other areas - you push the traffic around but each time reducing it a bit overall. If things are improving at a macro level then you need to look at the micro level to see how to resolve the problems that have been caused/increased when improving at the macro level, and with other residential roads I think the LTN solution is pretty solid.

The biggest problem I think is whether the roads that become boundary roads are actually suitable to be boundary roads or not. If they are also victorian/edwardian residential roads, they probably aren't very well suited to it. When you look at modern housing estate designs the boundary roads tend to have big green verges or service roads where they are residential, if built now should have proper segregated cycle lanes too. Would not have schools directly on them. Can't do that with older roads that become boundary roads.

If you can't resolve problems at the micro level, it might not be worth the gains at the macro level. Judgement call here that can be tough to make and is very dependent on local knowledge so I don't really want to comment on your specific situation too heavily, I can understand the macro end of this but not the micro

Yes - sorry, i didn't intentionally cut off the opening line of previous quote.

In Haringey we have all those problems - boundary roads which are Victorian with schools on, no cycle lanes - though the council claim to be doing feasability studies.

I'm not convinced that the macro level impacts will be that significant as the majority isn't local traffic but traffic coming down the A10/off the north circular which now goes via Wood Green or Tottenham.

My road is parallel to a main road - so now drivers, with the help of Waze use it as an A road substitute in the mornings. It's a narrow road with parked cars both sides, the end result being it's impossible to cycle west-east against the flow of rat-runners, while even cycling with the flow and taking the lane seems to drive them hyperbolic.

It's noticable that in the summer holiday the problem largely vanishes in that with lower journeys the cars stick to the main roads..

 

[teuchter]

It sounds like you need some kind of solution that keeps traffic on the main road rather than rat-running through residential ones.

 

[Hollis]

Well perhaps teuchter.. but first to note this had been caused by the LTNs that have been put in, and secondly in Haringey half the battle is to get acknowledgement that there are any problems at all with the schemes implemented. The majority of local advocates appear to maintain blissful denial of any adverse impacts. Not really the best way to win hearts and minds..

Ditto I can easily explain why the evaluation study of my local LTN is flawed from the outset, and inconsistent with what they knew and wanted to happen.

 

[teuchter]

Well perhaps teuchter.. but first to note this had been caused by the LTNs that have been put in,

Well, it's caused by a combination of excessive motor traffic and an adjacent LTN implementation. Possible solutions:
1. Remove all LTNs and have excessive traffic everywhere
2. Implement an LTN that will stop the inappropriate use of your street
3. Implement an alternative fictional solution.