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

[Cat Fan]

It should be sorted out pre-implementation.

I don't want to keep banging the same drum, but there seems to have been no discussions by Lambeth and TfL about buses prior to the implementation of the LTN. At this time of year especially, the main way to get people out of cars is to provide, or improve, public transport which mirror those car journeys you look to impact. And do so prior to implementation.

It seems that Lambeth have hoped that cycling will take up a lot of the slack, but they should launch LTNs in May if that is their wish.

Yes, pretty dismaying.

For the record I just timed the Sternhold Avenue light and I think it was only 12 seconds* vs. about 30 seconds for the pedestrian crossing and 1-2 mins for the main A23.

Seems like a no brainer to give a bit more time to Sternhold, but what do I know.

*Plus 5 seconds of people running the red light

 

[Smick]

I don’t think that’s much of an issue as that top part of NPR isn’t much of a problem and having Dumbarton Rd shut at Brixton Hill makes it much better for pedestrians there.

Looking at NPR on its own, it has to be an issue.

All traffic for those roads now has to use NPR. Previously access to Dumbarton could have come via Brixton Hill or Lyham. So now, not only is NPR not included in the LTN, it is taking traffic that it would not otherwise have done. The stretch between the minimarket and the trffic lights on Brixton Hill always has cars parked on one side or the other and there seems to be a lot of darting in and out. Lots of taxis using it, delivery vans etc.

It isn't a great road at all.

 

[Smick]

Yes, pretty dismaying.

For the record I just timed the Sternhold Avenue light and I think it was only 12 seconds* vs. about 30 seconds for the pedestrian crossing and 1-2 mins for the main A23.

Seems like a no brainer to give a bit more time to Sternhold, but what do I know.

*Plus 5 seconds of people running the red light

Green = Go
Amber = Go
Red = 5 more cars please.

I think a lot of cars turn left onto Blairderry Road to avoid those lights when heading towards Brixton / A205.

Anyway, they're trying to get people to reduce their dependency on cars so I don't think they'll do anything at Sternhold to make it more free-flowing.

 

[Cat Fan]

Green = Go
Amber = Go
Red = 5 more cars please.

I think a lot of cars turn left onto Blairderry Road to avoid those lights when heading towards Brixton / A205.

Anyway, they're trying to get people to reduce their dependency on cars so I don't think they'll do anything at Sternhold to make it more free-flowing.

Yes true, Blairderry takes a load of traffic for that reason.

It's one for TFL I think, not Lambeth. I don't know why Lambeth hasn't done anything to fix the problems with Blairderry and/or Sternhold or Telford Avenue for that matter.

Streatham Hill West LTN when?

 

[Crispy]

More likely this stuff was designed ages ago and is long overdue an update.

My favourite weird junction is Leigham Court Road/ Sternhold Avenue / A23.

For some reason there is no right turn from LCR to A23 except for buses, so everyone wanting to turn right has to drive round an unofficial gyratory and queue up for the very short green signal on Sternhold Avenue, mingled with natural traffic coming from that direction.

Traffic is permanently tailed back on Sternhold Avenue because the phase is too short.

LTNs mean much more traffic going round this weird system than before. TFL should review this stuff post implementation.

It's because the station protrudes into the street compared to the buildings North and South, effectively eating up one lane. So one lane's worth of traffic gets sent round the back. That "gyratory" bridge is relatively new. It's not in the 1952 OS map, which appears to have no RH turn from LCR at all.



British Rail were looking at moving the pavement line back in 1963, as evidenced by this borehole record from the BGS:



Other bores were taken at the site of the bridge, so I imagine they were comparing costs of various options for the pinch point and went with the cheaper one of sending some traffic round the back. Fixing it would probably mean expensive & intrusive strengthening of the railway bridge (much like what was done at Streatham station to allow the bus lanes to continue over).

 

[teuchter]

The northbound side of Streatham High Road doesn't revert to three lanes north of Streatham Hill station though so it doesn't seem that the gyratory arrangement facilitates a bus lane that would otherwise be impossible. It looks to me like an example of post war road redesign aimed at accommodating increased private motor traffic rather than looking at the interests of pedestrians & public transport users.

 

[Crispy]

The northbound side of Streatham High Road doesn't revert to three lanes north of Streatham Hill station though so it doesn't seem that the gyratory arrangement facilitates a bus lane that would otherwise be impossible. It looks to me like an example of post war road redesign aimed at accommodating increased private motor traffic rather than looking at the interests of pedestrians & public transport users.

Yes, exactly that

 

[teuchter]

It's just here and the fork junction ahead that's the main bottleneck going through Streatham, is that right?

The southbound traffic gets split into two lanes depending on whether it's going left or right.

I've wondered, would it be technically feasible to redesign/resignal the junction so that the left of those two lanes is a bus lane (for going either way) and the right-hand one is a non-bus lane again for going either way. Then you can guarantee a certain rate of throughput for buses.

 

[sparkybird]

They could put in those traffic light controlled priority bus lanes like they have on Walworth Road. Starting maybe at the Odeon.

 

[Cat Fan]

It's because the station protrudes into the street compared to the buildings North and South, effectively eating up one lane. So one lane's worth of traffic gets sent round the back. That "gyratory" bridge is relatively new. It's not in the 1952 OS map, which appears to have no RH turn from LCR at all.

Fascinating. However, these days there are only two lanes coming from LCR and only two going north from the station (third lane is parking and then a bus lane further down).

I can't see any harm in allowing the right turn, except for the risk of traffic backing into or driving by accident into the oncoming lane

 

[Crispy]

I've wondered, would it be technically feasible to redesign/resignal the junction so that the left of those two lanes is a bus lane (for going either way) and the right-hand one is a non-bus lane again for going either way. Then you can guarantee a certain rate of throughput for buses.

Yeah that's the worst bit. There is enough room for what you describe. You would have to lose the pedestrian island at the crossing. It would also make sense to get rid of the double Northbound lanes on Mitcham Road, and instead have parallel traffic and bus lanes so that Tooting-bound buses and vehicles can clear the junction before merging. You'd have to deconflict those RH turning buses from LH turning traffic though, probably with one of :

those traffic light controlled priority bus lanes like they have on Walworth Road. Starting maybe at the Odeon.

You'd do the same coming North (and get rid of the super-tight LH turn round the apex of the fork). The current road doesn't actually have any bus stops in the narrow bit up to the Odeon, so that part could stay as-is. Unfortunately it's the narrowest part of the road, so not enough room for bus lanes both way. So long as buses get their own phase in the lights though, they should flow well enough.



(I did some quick checks with a vehicle swept path tool and the geometry works)

It would all be quite hostile for cyclists of course, but that's a fault of the building lines and there's not much to be done about that without

wholesale demolition of a ~600m stretch of Victorian retail.

 

[teuchter]

Yeah that's the worst bit. There is enough room for what you describe. You would have to lose the pedestrian island at the crossing. It would also make sense to get rid of the double Northbound lanes on Mitcham Road, and instead have parallel traffic and bus lanes so that Tooting-bound buses and vehicles can clear the junction before merging. You'd have to deconflict those RH turning buses from LH turning traffic though, probably with one of :

You'd do the same coming North (and get rid of the super-tight LH turn round the apex of the fork). The current road doesn't actually have any bus stops in the narrow bit up to the Odeon, so that part could stay as-is. Unfortunately it's the narrowest part of the road, so not enough room for bus lanes both way. So long as buses get their own phase in the lights though, they should flow well enough.

View attachment 404857

(I did some quick checks with a vehicle swept path tool and the geometry works)

It would all be quite hostile for cyclists of course, but that's a fault of the building lines and there's not much to be done about that without

It's the sort of scenario where if it would sort the buses out I think it would be justifiable to decide that safe/marked cycling routes bypass that stretch even if it increased distances a little, because public transport users should come higher in the priorities. I don't really know that bit of town well enough to suggest what that would involve but presumably the new LTN ought to have opened up some better cycling routes on roads which previously had more traffic?

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Other bores

Bit of a harsh description of some of the thread conversations. Or maybe not

 

[edcraw]

All roads in Lambeth are now 20mph!!! Have noticed it’s got a lot safer crossing Brixton Hill, Tulse Hill and the South Circular with the slower traffic.

 

[Crispy]

The railway causes some quite significant detours unfortunately.

It's the sort of scenario where if it would sort the buses out I think it would be justifiable to decide that safe/marked cycling routes bypass that stretch even if it increased distances a little, because public transport users should come higher in the priorities. I don't really know that bit of town well enough to suggest what that would involve but presumably the new LTN ought to have opened up some better cycling routes on roads which previously had more traffic?

As always in South London, the railways get in the way. I've marked all the ways of crossing the railways below. The red ones are main roads with no cycle infrastructure. The green ones are LTN roads or footpaths (the one at bottom left is only 1.8m wide under one railway, and then has multiple flights of stairs to get under the other).



So getting around within an LTN is ok, but moving from one to the other, or across the tracks, almost always means playing chicken with heavy traffic.
London is full of this sort of thing.

 

[teuchter]

Yes.

Valley Rd - Sunnyhill Rd looks maybe viable as a means of bypassing that junction, especially if cyclists are allowed to take the diagonal across Streatham Common, but I can see that it perhaps adds various hills to the route.

 

[Cat Fan]

The Romans knew what they were doing when they built the first road from Londonium to the south coast where the A23 is now.

It is the quickest and flattest route by some distance.

 

[teuchter]

The Romans knew what they were doing when they built the first road from Londonium to the south coast where the A23 is now.

It is the quickest and flattest route by some distance.

Fairly sure that the route the main rail line from London Bridge to Brighton takes (new cross/sydenham) is flatter.

The A23 goes over Brixton Hill and Streatham Hill (which are outliers of the larger hills of Crystal Palace) rather than trying to circumnavigate them. The railway avoids the whole lot by going to the east.

The two routes broadly agree south of Croydon/Purley.

 

[Cat Fan]

Sure, we can't

Fairly sure that the route the main rail line from London Bridge to Brighton takes (new cross/sydenham) is flatter.

The A23 goes over Brixton Hill and Streatham Hill (which are outliers of the larger hills of Crystal Palace) rather than trying to circumnavigate them. The railway avoids the whole lot by going to the east.

The two routes broadly agree south of Croydon/Purley.

Ok, makes sense for a train route. For someone on foot/bike that's a bit of a detour

 

[sparkybird]

Yes.

Valley Rd - Sunnyhill Rd looks maybe viable as a means of bypassing that junction, especially if cyclists are allowed to take the diagonal across Streatham Common, but I can see that it perhaps adds various hills to the route.

Yes except that the path isn't wide enough for 2 pedestrians let alone a cyclist. The council just remade it, same width. Apparently it is too difficult to apply for consent to widen it

 

[roseLink]

streatham-hill-tulse-hill-ltns

So they, clearly, have a number of objectives.

the "greener air " is very questionable to say the least, I never saw a device, machine, drone or anything to measure the air pollution. The cars are just diverted to christchurch road, creating anger amost drivers, heavy traffic. Now, I live on one of the states by the road behing City Highs School, what about my health? as now all cars are on that this main road? Another point (pointless) is that it makes road safer, well i did not see anyone runned over since my 20m years living in Streatham, nor many car accidents, none of this traffic mis[placements makes sense apart of fining the drivers and bring local revenues to councils. The number of cars are not going to be less, Streatham is in the middle of the road from south and north connections, the people who ared disabled and need a car to go around, are only to join the queue, which is not fair, and for those that are really into green air, move to the country side. TRAFFIC MISPLACEMENTS IS ALL IT IS not less.

 

[liquidindian]

Why do they all write the same way?

 

[Agent Sparrow]

Why is none of the ire at traffic ever directed to those comprising the traffic

 

[alex_]

Why is none of the ire at traffic ever directed to those comprising the traffic

You “ared disabled” and you don’t live “middle of the road from south and north connections” so you’d never understand.

Alex

 

[Cat Fan]

Another point (pointless) is that it makes road safer, well i did not see anyone runned over since my 20m years living in Streatham, nor many car accidents

There have been quite a few seriously injured or killed over the past 20 years I think! Sadly

 

[editor]

Foodbanks saying that LTNs are causing them delivery problems

Streatham Foodbank needs urgent help with food parcel deliveries this week as LTNs slow down services

Brixton Buzz has received a call that reliable people with a car or a van are urgently needed to assist the foodbank in Streatham with food parcel deliveries this week.

www.brixtonbuzz.com

 

[MickiQ]

Foodbanks saying that LTNs are causing them delivery problems

Streatham Foodbank needs urgent help with food parcel deliveries this week as LTNs slow down services

Brixton Buzz has received a call that reliable people with a car or a van are urgently needed to assist the foodbank in Streatham with food parcel deliveries this week.

www.brixtonbuzz.com

That's a bit of a stretch tbh. Their argument seems to go along the lines of each delivery instead of taking x minutes is now taking x+y minutes because the driver has to go by a more convoluted route to deliver each parcel pushing up total delivery times and thus causing a problem.
It would be equally true to say shortage of delivery drivers is causing us a problem (and they're appealing for more so clearly they know this). It would be even truer to say increased demand due to the cost of living is causing us to take longer to deliver parcels because we have more to deliver. I don't think abolising LTN's is the right way to tackle the current cost of living crisis.

 

[editor]

That's a bit of a stretch tbh. Their argument seems to go along the lines of each delivery instead of taking x minutes is now taking x+y minutes because the driver has to go by a more convoluted route to deliver each parcel pushing up total delivery times and thus causing a problem.
It would be equally true to say shortage of delivery drivers is causing us a problem (and they're appealing for more so clearly they know this). It would be even truer to say increased demand due to the cost of living is causing us to take longer to deliver parcels because we have more to deliver. I don't think abolising LTN's is the right way to tackle the current cost of living crisis.

I'm all in favour of LTNs but I really have no reason to doubt what they're saying.

 

[MickiQ]

I'm all in favour of LTNs but I really have no reason to doubt what they're saying.

So what are you suggesting then? an exemption for people delivering food parcels? If that why not an exemption for someone who has forgotten his inhaler and is so worried about it that he has started a petition? Why not an exemption for someone who is rushing to a doctors appt/job interview? Once you start off down the special case route it never stops until the whole thing becomes pointless.

 

[editor]

So what are you suggesting then? an exemption for people delivering food parcels? If that why not an exemption for someone who has forgotten his inhaler and is so worried about it that he has started a petition? Why not an exemption for someone who is rushing to a doctors appt/job interview? Once you start off down the special case route it never stops until the whole thing becomes pointless.

I'm not suggesting anything and I'm not sure why you're being so aggressive.