Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

wurlycurly said:
You keep going on about consultation but that's to ignore the fact that we're in extraordinary times. Covid cases are soaring again and there's a desperate need to alleviate the pressure, or reliance, on public transport. It will save lives and LTNs should help with that. Do you think we should maybe chat about them for a couple of years first?
Click to expand...

What lives will it save?

SFAICS the majority of LTN backstreets were quiet already (both before Covid and post-lockdown) and will become a bit quieter, while some, like Ferndale and Solon have changed from quiet to congested, and the main roads have gone from busy to busier. I don't understand how that saves lives, either as a pandemic response or through more traditional threats like air quality and road collisions. Quiet backstreets were not disproportionately dangerous before Covid, so using LTNs to make them safer isn't focussing on the threat.

Widening pavements to reduce pressure in busy places makes sense to everyone (or so I believe, I've heard very few voices opposing it). Increasing safe cycling provision is a bit less universally accepted, but only a bit. As Covid, air quality and road safety responses they make sense to most people, because they target real and immediate problems. LTNs target quality of life (not safety) for selected insiders, and by increasing pressure on main roads they concentrate both air quality and road safety risk where it was already locally highest. They increase Covid risk for some people by increasing pollution at the same time as extending journey times for bus passengers, delivery drivers and other road users

Backstreet cycling has always been generally slower than on the main roads, but safer, nicer, less stressful. Cyclists have had the freedom of quiet backstreets streets anyway, including those made quieter by the new LTNs, I've been riding them for years with very few near miss scares, holdups or anything else to disturb. All the new cyclists may get a warm glow from being able to pedal for a few streets within an LTN but when they leave it they're on to busier, more dangerous and more polluted junctions and roads than they would have been without the LTN. I guess everyone is expecting cyclist casualty rates to increase because there are so many inexperienced ones around now, but I very much doubt that many injuries or deaths will be on ordinary backstreets, whether in LTNs or not. They never have been, it seems unlikely they'll suddenly start now.

Same with pedestrians. Those who mostly potter about within their LTN will be presumably see and feel some quality of life benefit, but if kids are ever taken to school again, those walking will mostly have to cross or walk along the main roads, breathing in more pollution, being more at risk of injury and having a worse experience. When they go shopping or walk to the tube they'll see what those who live or work on the main roads are expected to put up with all the time, though I doubt they'll recognise that those people have been officially deemed to not matter, they're sacrificial, apparently for the greater good.

Btw I don't think anyone has mentioned on this thread that return to work will kick in from monday. No-one knows what will happen, but increased commuting and some reduction in WFH is to be expected I guess. If the West End and City get busier so will the roads and public transport (which many people are still terrified of). If every company schedules an all staff welcome back in person meeting on monday morning there will be chaos indeed. As WFH declines one of the main props for using LTNs as Covid response, that so many people are at home all the time, will also diminish. In any case people are at home on Acre Lane, Brixton Hill and so on as well. They just tend to have less money to spend on their housing than those on quieter streets- ime very few people actively want to live with constant traffic outside, they're there because they can't afford the quieter, nicer streets.

LTNs target the wrong problems. A blanket assertion that they "will save lives" needs to be explained in detail.
 
Gramsci said:
Did you go through Beech Street? By the Barbican with the tunnel?

They are making that street "zero emissions" as some kind of experiment.

Its not the whole of City of London.

It was done before the pandemic as an experiment.

My Van driver mates would be more worked up about it but its so empty in the City that it does not make much difference.

City is empty still. Van Drivers I know who worked in central London are really struggling.

Most big companies are ( wisely) keeping staff on home working. Whatever Boris says. TBF some of the big capitalist firms have dealt with virus better than Boris and the Tories. They arent going to get their staff coming in every day on public transport. That is the big problem for the City. To get people back it would not work for social distancing purposes. Not everyone can cycle or walk to work.

Lot of new spaces for pedestrians etc but no one is coming into work in the City. Im starting to wonder if all these new spaces for pedestrians and cyclists are really necessary.

Same with West End.

The only delivery people I know who have been doing ok are the motorbikes. One told me he is doing a lot of out of town deliveries. Long days but making a living. Moving stuff for home workers of big companies.

I see whole offices with empty desks. This is going to be long term. I find the City quite surreal place to be.Massive buildings with no people.

Big Capitalist companies are planning for the long haul and not taking notice of what that prat Boris says.

What I feel for is the small cafes.One I use is open but they have hardly any customers.

Hope all is well with you.
Click to expand...
It was under the Barbican, haven't driven that way in years but a road was blocked that I would usually have taken .
 
newbie said:
What lives will it save?

SFAICS the majority of LTN backstreets were quiet already (both before Covid and post-lockdown) and will become a bit quieter, while some, like Ferndale and Solon have changed from quiet to congested, and the main roads have gone from busy to busier. I don't understand how that saves lives, either as a pandemic response or through more traditional threats like air quality and road collisions. Quiet backstreets were not disproportionately dangerous before Covid, so using LTNs to make them safer isn't focussing on the threat.

Widening pavements to reduce pressure in busy places makes sense to everyone (or so I believe, I've heard very few voices opposing it). Increasing safe cycling provision is a bit less universally accepted, but only a bit. As Covid, air quality and road safety responses they make sense to most people, because they target real and immediate problems. LTNs target quality of life (not safety) for selected insiders, and by increasing pressure on main roads they concentrate both air quality and road safety risk where it was already locally highest. They increase Covid risk for some people by increasing pollution at the same time as extending journey times for bus passengers, delivery drivers and other road users

Backstreet cycling has always been generally slower than on the main roads, but safer, nicer, less stressful. Cyclists have had the freedom of quiet backstreets streets anyway, including those made quieter by the new LTNs, I've been riding them for years with very few near miss scares, holdups or anything else to disturb. All the new cyclists may get a warm glow from being able to pedal for a few streets within an LTN but when they leave it they're on to busier, more dangerous and more polluted junctions and roads than they would have been without the LTN. I guess everyone is expecting cyclist casualty rates to increase because there are so many inexperienced ones around now, but I very much doubt that many injuries or deaths will be on ordinary backstreets, whether in LTNs or not. They never have been, it seems unlikely they'll suddenly start now.

Same with pedestrians. Those who mostly potter about within their LTN will be presumably see and feel some quality of life benefit, but if kids are ever taken to school again, those walking will mostly have to cross or walk along the main roads, breathing in more pollution, being more at risk of injury and having a worse experience. When they go shopping or walk to the tube they'll see what those who live or work on the main roads are expected to put up with all the time, though I doubt they'll recognise that those people have been officially deemed to not matter, they're sacrificial, apparently for the greater good.

LTNs target the wrong problems. A blanket assertion that they "will save lives" needs to be explained in detail.
Click to expand...

Lets have one more go for you. I'm sure it's all be said before.

Three important things going on -
  • a climate emergency which means there is an urgent need to reduce carbon emissions. We need to reduce trips made by motor vehicles. Transport is a major contributor to carbon emissions. We need to find lower carbon ways for people move around and reducing trips by private car (and enabling people to feel safe to make trips on foot or by bike instead). There is a solid evidence base that shows large numbers of trips in London could be walked or cycled that are not at present. Yes, also need to look at the way goods are moved and businesses operate.
  • an air quality emergency. We have an ever increasing understanding of the impact of air pollution on health. Transport is a major contributor to air pollution. We need to reduce trips by motor vehicles. Electric vehicles don't solve the issue because much of the problem is brake, tyre and resuspended dust which Electric vehicles still cause.
  • COVID. People still want and need to travel around but the capacity of public transport is drastically reduced. Most Londoners don't have access to a car so unless we reprioritise space to allow them to travel safely on foot or by bike they will be excluded. There is a major risk that those that do have cars will use them more than before, and that more people will try to obtain vehicles - but we know that there simply isn't the capacity to accommodate everyone.

Carbon and pollution reduction needs to happen at a Londonwide (nationwide) level.

if you want to reduce traffic there aren't many options you have.
  • make owning cars more expensive (through purchase tax, parking or fuel costs). But that's very slow to have an impact and we need to make change now
  • make using cars more expensive. Some form of smart road user pricing is inevitable long term but even if a decision to implement was made today it's years away.
  • make cars cleaner. Bring forward the ULEZ. It's good but its still marginal change, it's politically charged, and it's still years away - the enforcement infa still needs to be built.
  • reduce the convenience of driving (especially short trips) by limiting roads available and parking. LTNS do this
  • reduce the effective capacity of the road network. We know that traffic grows to fill the space available - induced demand - and that reducing the space available leads to traffic evaporation. this can be done quickly and cheaply with LTNs.

If you accept the need to reduce carbon emissions, improve air quality at a city wide level, then those are your options.

Lockdown has been a weird experiment that has backed up all the research that showed the main barrier to many more people cycling was fear of traffic. I'm really glad that you felt comfortable cycling with historic road conditions but most people didn't. Many of them got on their bikes with Lockdowns reduction in traffic. We can see that this works.

Are they perfect? No - in the short term at least there is going to be some traffic displaced onto other roads but there is good evidence that reduces over time.

But don't pretend those other roads were healthy as they were. If Coldharbour Lane had 15k vehicles per day before and it now has 16k or 17k obviously that's not great but the problem isn't the couple of thousand trips per day that might have shifted from Railton LTN - they're not making the difference between it being a healthy street or not. Where was your outrage about he impact of those 15k on the community there before?

Will there be more congestion? Probably in the short term but again that's shown to drop off quickly. Congestion already placed a limit on road traffic at the level it was before.

Should something happen on the main roads to remove traffic there as well? Definitely. But what? You've got the options above. Yes, you can create protected space for cycling on main roads (and TfL are doing that) but that also increases congestion in the short term and to do it even with cheap temporary materials is slower, more complex (because of signalised junctions) and more expensive than LTNs.
At a Londonwide level less effective road capacity, by removing the rat runs that have formed, significantly driven by increased satnav use, will Lower carbon emissions and pollution. Creating quiet streets within neighbourhoods and space on main roads gives people real options to travel without driving or using public transport.

If you've got other ideas please share them, but there don't seem to be any other coming from any other cities globally so it seems unlikely someone on here has found a magic bullet.

If you think carbon emissions, pollution levels and historic levels of car use are just fine obviously we're not even on the same page.

Some people on here try to paint this all at a hyper local level democracy level and that somehow if particular group of residents (or more likely a loud minority on a particular street) think that the small inconvenience to their own ability to drive where they want by the shortest route means that they should be able opt out of a plan to address the above emergencies. I don't think that's sustainable or realistic. The reason we have a representative democracy is to avoid those sort of issues and allow decisions to be made that benefit society as a whole even if they are unpopular with some sections of that society.
 
Last edited:
thebackrow said:
Lets have one more go for you. I'm sure it's all be said before.

Three important things going on -
  • a climate emergency which means there is an urgent need to reduce carbon emissions. We need to reduce trips made by motor vehicles. Transport is a major contributor to carbon emissions. We need to find lower carbon ways for people move around and reducing trips by private car (and enabling people to feel safe to make trips on foot or by bike instead). There is a solid evidence base that shows large numbers of trips in London could be walked or cycled that are not at present. Yes, also need to look at the way goods are moved and businesses operate.
  • an air quality emergency. We have an ever increasing understanding of the impact of air pollution on health. Transport is a major contributor to air pollution. We need to reduce trips by motor vehicles. Electric vehicles don't solve the issue because much of the problem is brake, tyre and resuspended dust which Electric vehicles still cause.
  • COVID. People still want and need to travel around but the capacity of public transport is drastically reduced. Most Londoners don't have access to a car so unless we reprioritise space to allow them to travel safely on foot or by bike they will be excluded. There is a major risk that those that do have cars will use them more than before, and that more people will try to obtain vehicles - but we know that there simply isn't the capacity to accommodate everyone.

Carbon and pollution reduction needs to happen at a Londonwide (nationwide) level.

if you want to reduce traffic there aren't many options you have.
  • make owning cars more expensive (through purchase tax, parking or fuel costs). But that's very slow to have an impact and we need to make change now
  • make using cars more expensive. Some form of smart road user pricing is inevitable long term but even if a decision to implement was made today it's years away.
  • make cars cleaner. Bring forward the ULEZ. It's good but its still marginal change, it's politically charged, and it's still years away - the enforcement infa still needs to be built.
  • reduce the convenience of driving (especially short trips) by limiting roads available and parking. LTNS do this
  • reduce the effective capacity of the road network. We know that traffic grows to fill the space available - induced demand - and that reducing the space available leads to traffic evaporation. this can be done quickly and cheaply with LTNs.

If you accept the need to reduce carbon emissions, improve air quality at a city wide level, then those are your options.

Lockdown has been a weird experiment that has backed up all the research that showed the main barrier to many more people cycling was fear of traffic. I'm really glad that you felt comfortable cycling with historic road conditions but most people didn't. Many of them got on their bikes with Lockdowns reduction in traffic. We can see that this works.

Are they perfect? No - in the short term at least there is going to be some traffic displaced onto other roads but there is good evidence that reduces over time but don't pretend those other roads were healthy as they were. Will there be more congestion? Probably in the short term but again that's shown to drop off quickly. Congestion already placed a limit on road traffic at the level it was before.

Should something happen on the main roads to remove traffic there as well? Definitely. But what? You've got the options above. Yes, you can create protected space for cycling on main roads (and TfL are doing that) but that also increases congestion in the short term and to do it even with cheap temporary materials is slower, more complex (because of signalised junctions) and more expensive than LTNs.

At a Londonwide level less effective road capacity, by removing the rat runs that have formed, significantly driven by increased satnav use, will Lower carbon emissions and pollution. Creating quiet streets within neighbourhoods and space on main roads gives people real options to travel without driving or using public transport.

If you've got other ideas please share them, but there don't seem to be any other coming from any other cities globally so it seems unlikely someone on here has found a magic bullet.

If you think carbon emissions, pollution levels and historic levels of car use are just fine obviously we're not even on the same page.

Some people on here try to paint this all at a hyper local level democracy level and that somehow if particular group of residents (or more likely a loud minority on a particular street) think that the small inconvenience to their own ability to drive where they want by the shortest route means that they should be able opt out of a plan to address the above emergencies. I don't think that's sustainable or realistic. The reason we have a representative democracy is to avoid those sort of issues and allow decisions to be made that benefit society as a whole even if they are unpopular with some sections of that society.
Click to expand...
You've listed three important bullet points, with Covid as the last although this is all being done under cover of the emergency. You've then said "Will there be more congestion? Probably in the short term " and "Are they perfect? No - in the short term at least there is going to be some traffic displaced onto other roads". So as an emergency response it'll make things worse, which is what I said.

I accept your point that "traffic grows to fill the space available" but we are in an emergency where public transport is thought less safe than when your script was written. The important climate change and air quality bullets do not have to be prioritised over the virus in the short term, but understanding that road space should be full of buses that people can use safely, not private cars, needs to be emphasised.

I don't like being misrepresented, you've made up that I "pretend those other roads were healthy as they were". I said that quiet backstreets were not disproportionately dangerous. But then I did post a couple of images the other day showing pollution is concentrated on and near main roads, so quiet backstreets could be considered comparatively healthy compared with their nearish neighbours nearer main roads. As for "If you think carbon emissions, pollution levels and historic levels of car use are just fine obviously we're not even on the same page." that's just a hyperbolic smear.

Other Covid responses? I've said a lot of it it before.
Increase the number of buses on the main roads, target commuters and sensibly reduce main road congestion, which is what permeable backstreets do..
Stop delivery to home by large vehicles, embarrass, nudge or force people to walk or cycle to use collection points. The Amazon locker initiative should be extended, struggling retailers can open pick-up points and home delivery by cargo bike or foot only, which should be the norm except for big items. There's absolutely no reason why the fit and healthy shouldn't be expected walk to collect small parcels.
Same with cabs, which go from rank to rank, so for able users the expectation becomes active travel to a cab rank rather than being door to doored. Active travel is what the script forces on schoolchildren and their parents while leaving equally harmful other activities untouched. Wrong target.
Focus on getting rid of big footprint, single user car journeys completely. Extend the ULEZ immediately (if the infrastructure for LTNs can be put in in a hurry so can ULEZ). If necessary with (capped) scrappage schemes in both cases.
Remove parking space in the West End and City, particularly off street business perks, so car commuting is less viable.
Focus on the problems- social distancing, road safety, concentration of pollution.
Apply this across London as a whole. Every borough, every neighbourhood.
Do all this very explicitly, and explain why so that those who are being asked/told to change their activities understand both why they need to modify some of their behaviour and the benefits it could bring.
Brainstorm ideas.
In the longer term, road rationing with explicit carbon and pollution targets..

As for the script wet dream of road pricing, the contempt for the poor and appeasement of the rich just shines through.
 
ps for the avoidance of doubt I'm taking improving cycling safety on main roads as read.

That's a short list, but I've run out of time. My long term aim would be to stop people living far away from where they work.
 
newbie said:
You've listed three important bullet points, with Covid as the last although this is all being done under cover of the emergency. You've then said "Will there be more congestion? Probably in the short term " and "Are they perfect? No - in the short term at least there is going to be some traffic displaced onto other roads". So as an emergency response it'll make things worse, which is what I said.
Click to expand...
But they create immediate capacity for walking and cycling - that's why there is an urgency because of COVID. The covid element is about providing an alternative to driving and public transport - NOT about pollution and air quality, which even with increased bus services (and I'm now sure how you could deliver that rapidly - need more buses, more bus garages, more bus drivers etc)

newbie said:
I accept your point that "traffic grows to fill the space available" but we are in an emergency where public transport is thought less safe than when your script was written. The important climate change and air quality bullets do not have to be prioritised over the virus in the short term, but understanding that road space should be full of buses that people can use safely, not private cars, needs to be emphasised.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but buses are still polluting. Moving existing bus passengers off buses to walking and cycling effectively creates more public transport capacity for those that need it without needing more buses and bus infra (which can't be delivered in a matter of weeks). That was the reason that Cycle Superhighway 7 followed the northern line - to cheaply create more capacity on that tube by moving some current passengers to bikes.
Also, unless you can take cars off the road immediately, those new buses will just get stuck in traffic.

newbie said:
I don't like being misrepresented, you've made up that I "pretend those other roads were healthy as they were". I said that quiet backstreets were not disproportionately dangerous. But then I did post a couple of images the other day showing pollution is concentrated on and near main roads, so quiet backstreets could be considered comparatively healthy compared with their nearish neighbours nearer main roads. As for "If you think carbon emissions, pollution levels and historic levels of car use are just fine obviously we're not even on the same page." that's just a hyperbolic smear.
Click to expand...
apologies, some of this post was written in general terms rather than a specific response to you. a bad habit.

newbie said:
sensibly reduce main road congestion, which is what permeable backstreets do..
Click to expand...

That seems to be your opinion, not backed up by any evidence. In fact there was some research published just this week (that supports previous evidence) that suggests the opposite might be true.
www.independent.co.uk

Rush hour drivers who use short cuts off main roads 'increase journey times for everybody else'

Researchers say the key to clearing congestion is more socially aware routing
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

newbie said:
As for the script wet dream of road pricing, the contempt for the poor and appeasement of the rich just shines through.
Click to expand...
who mentioned hyperbolic smears? there's been a discussion on here before about how you can do this fairly but I can't think of a more sensible and effective way to encourage sensible transport choices than putting as much of the cost as possible at the point of use.
When you want to go somewhere you look at an app and it gives you the cost options - rent a bike for £1, take a bus for £1.50, use the tube for £4 or drive for £10 (prices just completely random ideas with no suggestion that should be relative levels). There were discussion on here about allocating so many miles a year per person etc so there are loads of tweaks but it's almost undoubtably the best way to get people to make rational decisions. The problem with car ownership now is that once you've got one, and you;'re maybe paying £400 a month on a lease for it, you've got a big incentive to drive it.
 
thebackrow said:
Some people on here try to paint this all at a hyper local level democracy level and that somehow if particular group of residents (or more likely a loud minority on a particular street) think that the small inconvenience to their own ability to drive where they want by the shortest route means that they should be able opt out of a plan to address the above emergencies. I don't think that's sustainable or realistic. The reason we have a representative democracy is to avoid those sort of issues and allow decisions to be made that benefit society as a whole even if they are unpopular with some sections of that society.
Click to expand...

Ive explained in previous posts how I think representative democracy works using examples. Your simplifying it.
 
Gramsci said:
Ive explained in previous posts how I think representative democracy works using examples. Your simplifying it.
Click to expand...
Gramsci said:
Lot of angry posts on the Railton LTN about the blocking off of Shakespeare road.

This is looking like the most contentious bit of this experimental scheme.

Several comments that support scheme but people who live in the LTN should be allowed to use the bus gates. Ie be able to drive through Shakespeare road for example. Seems a reasonable compromise to me.
Click to expand...

that seems to be exactly what you said
 
thebackrow said:
that seems to be exactly what you said
Click to expand...

That is not saying that.

I was following the Council consultation on commonplace. Which they will be using to evaluate the scheme.

The Council has divided the Brixton Liveable neighbourhood into smaller units. Each LTN has its own commonplace consultation page. The Council is encouraging those who live in areas to comment.

This suggestion was in a couple of comments.

It would be up to Council to make final decision.

I noted that personally it seemed reasonable suggestion.
 
thebackrow said:
That seems to be your opinion, not backed up by any evidence. In fact there was some research published just this week (that supports previous evidence) that suggests the opposite might be true.
www.independent.co.uk

Rush hour drivers who use short cuts off main roads 'increase journey times for everybody else'

Researchers say the key to clearing congestion is more socially aware routing
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
Click to expand...

That's interesting, cheers. There's a lot that could be said about that. They're suggesting the optimum 'social good'- delivering workers to their work during rush hour with no account of the other >50% of the population- might be algorithm controlled road trains on centrally planned routes, presumably with lights phased for maximum throughput. Though I'll have little time over the next few days, I'm interested in what others think.


who mentioned hyperbolic smears? there's been a discussion on here before about how you can do this fairly but I can't think of a more sensible and effective way to encourage sensible transport choices than putting as much of the cost as possible at the point of use.
When you want to go somewhere you look at an app and it gives you the cost options - rent a bike for £1, take a bus for £1.50, use the tube for £4 or drive for £10 (prices just completely random ideas with no suggestion that should be relative levels). There were discussion on here about allocating so many miles a year per person etc so there are loads of tweaks but it's almost undoubtably the best way to get people to make rational decisions. The problem with car ownership now is that once you've got one, and you;'re maybe paying £400 a month on a lease for it, you've got a big incentive to drive it.
Click to expand...
Yes, you're pushing road pricing which inevitably favours the better off and I suggested road rationing, which doesn't. That is indeed the difference,
 
newbie said:
SFAICS the majority of LTN backstreets were quiet already (both before Covid and post-lockdown) and will become a bit quieter, while some, like Ferndale and Solon have changed from quiet to congested, and the main roads have gone from busy to busier. I don't understand how that saves lives, either as a pandemic response or through more traditional threats like air quality and road collisions. Quiet backstreets were not disproportionately dangerous before Covid, so using LTNs to make them safer isn't focussing on the threat.
Click to expand...

Show us your evidence that either of these things have happened, as a result of the recently (partially implemented) LTNs, given sufficient time for travel habits to re-settle. You can't - it would be impossible. You're stating stuff as if it's fact when it quite plainly is not.
 
I posted previously that looking at the comments ( on the commonplace) the Railton road section of the LTN looks like it might be supported by local residents.

But the Shakespeare road section has been opposed.

Looks like Rattray road / Barnwell road residents support the scheme as it is reducing through traffic using those streets as rat runs.

So its a mixed picture.

The Railton LTN area is one where majority of traffic has been just going through the area. Don't live in it and are not delivering or working in the area. ( according to Council info ).

As I keep saying Im critically supportive of these schemes.

I don't think alterations or changes should be ruled out. Suggestions such as allowing residents who live in the area of the LTN to use bus gates for example. Or reviewing the Shakespeare road section.

What I have not seen is how the Council is going to review these experimental schemes. Take into account comments by local residents in the LTNs.
 
Last edited:
teuchter said:
Show us your evidence that either of these things have happened, as a result of the recently (partially implemented) LTNs, given sufficient time for travel habits to re-settle. You can't - it would be impossible. You're stating stuff as if it's fact when it quite plainly is not.
Click to expand...
You're asking for evidence from the future?
Have a look at the traffic on Maps at different times in the day, its been pretty clear where the traffic is each time I've looked.
 
Take Milkwood road. From what Ive seen cycling on it and looking at the comments on the Council commonplace traffic has increased as its an alternative to the now blocked off Shakespeare road.

If ths is short term situation what is the long term one? Is it thought that that traffic will just evaporate?

Have to see how this progresses as this experimental scheme goes on.

I really hope this time the Council will be doing proper studies of what is happening to the traffic with the implementation of the LTNs.
 
teuchter said:
Yes, that would be the only way you could substantiate your claims, unless your claims only apply to a short term situation in which case what's your point?
Click to expand...
I'm lost! My point? That the majority of LTN backstreets were quiet already (both before Covid and post-lockdown) and will become a bit quieter, while some, like Ferndale and Solon have changed from quiet to congested, and the main roads have gone from busy to busier. That is pretty much self evident. You pointed out that the schemes are part implemented and haven't settled down. So's that. Both describe where we're at. Shall we leave it there, see what happens next and stop being silly?
 
newbie said:
I'm lost! My point? That the majority of LTN backstreets were quiet already (both before Covid and post-lockdown) and will become a bit quieter, while some, like Ferndale and Solon have changed from quiet to congested, and the main roads have gone from busy to busier. That is pretty much self evident. You pointed out that the schemes are part implemented and haven't settled down. So's that. Both describe where we're at. Shall we leave it there, see what happens next and stop being silly?
Click to expand...
You were using it to make an argument about there being no benefit in terms of "lives saved" because - according to you - not only were the quiet streets already quiet, the measures have made certain streets busier. And you went on to mention streets like Ferndale Road, which you are saying has become congested, even though the reasons for this happening in the short term were discussed just a page or two back. If the argument is about lives saved in the long term then short term effects are irrelevant.

As for certain main roads having gone from busy to busier, no that's not self evident, or at least it's not self evident that this is due to the LTNs. It might be, and it may or may not be short term only, but it's not "self evident". There's so much else changing at the moment that if a certain road appears to have become busier, no-one can say how relevant the LTNs are to that.

That also applies to any claims that the LTNs have had no effect on traffic outside of them. I'm not going to claim that. At this stage we can't say. If Lambeth or TfL are doing any meaningful monitoring, then maybe we'll be able to get some kind of idea a few months from now. Pre- and post- LTN traffic levels will have to be compared but it'll also be necessary to try and view that alongside London-wide measurements to try and disentangled the effects of LTNs from the effects of Covid-related changes in travel habits.
 
Gramsci said:
Take Milkwood road. From what Ive seen cycling on it and looking at the comments on the Council commonplace traffic has increased as its an alternative to the now blocked off Shakespeare road.

If ths is short term situation what is the long term one? Is it thought that that traffic will just evaporate?

Have to see how this progresses as this experimental scheme goes on.

I really hope this time the Council will be doing proper studies of what is happening to the traffic with the implementation of the LTNs.
Click to expand...

Milkwood is currently a bottle neck at the Herne Hill junction end - as the roads been narrowed on either side for pedestrians. All it takes is one supermarket delivery truck stopping, or a car parking on the double yellows and it gets reduced to almost one lane in either direction and snarls up
 
newbie said:
I'm lost! My point? That the majority of LTN backstreets were quiet already (both before Covid and post-lockdown) and will become a bit quieter, while some, like Ferndale and Solon have changed from quiet to congested, and the main roads have gone from busy to busier. That is pretty much self evident. You pointed out that the schemes are part implemented and haven't settled down. So's that. Both describe where we're at. Shall we leave it there, see what happens next and stop being silly?
Click to expand...

The way that Lambeth decided where LTN's would be implemented was based on 2017 traffic data and a scoring system using five criteria, scored on a scale of 1-3, with the maximum overall score being 15. The criteria were:

- Air quality (NO2)

- Collision rate (per household in the neighbourhood)

- Number of school pupils living in the neighbourhood

- Length of Healthy Routes within the neighbourhood

- Evidence that rat-running is an issue

So the backstreets were not and are not 'quiet'. I live in a ward which scored 14, so personally am looking forward to the implementation of the LTN, as are all the neighbours I have spoken to.
The volume, speed, pollution and noise of traffic has increased enormously since lockdown eased and so much of it is rat running/non local traffic including huge lorries despite there being a weight limit. Not a day goes by without something kicking off as drivers shout, swear and scream at each other when they 'gridlock' the narrow roads. How anyone is supposed to cycle in the traffic is beyond me.
One of our neighbours who is 85 and sheltering, so hasn't ventured out much at all, now says he cannot garden in his own front garden due to the effects of pollution on his chest. This is so sad. What right do we have to inflict this on someone?
I agree that of course the schemes will need to be tweaked and LBL have said they will do this, along with pre and during scheme monitoring of traffic to determine what improvements have been seen.
 
sparkybird said:
The way that Lambeth decided where LTN's would be implemented was based on 2017 traffic data and a scoring system using five criteria, scored on a scale of 1-3, with the maximum overall score being 15. The criteria were:

- Air quality (NO2)

- Collision rate (per household in the neighbourhood)

- Number of school pupils living in the neighbourhood

- Length of Healthy Routes within the neighbourhood

- Evidence that rat-running is an issue

So the backstreets were not and are not 'quiet'. I live in a ward which scored 14, so personally am looking forward to the implementation of the LTN, as are all the neighbours I have spoken to.
The volume, speed, pollution and noise of traffic has increased enormously since lockdown eased and so much of it is rat running/non local traffic including huge lorries despite there being a weight limit. Not a day goes by without something kicking off as drivers shout, swear and scream at each other when they 'gridlock' the narrow roads. How anyone is supposed to cycle in the traffic is beyond me.
One of our neighbours who is 85 and sheltering, so hasn't ventured out much at all, now says he cannot garden in his own front garden due to the effects of pollution on his chest. This is so sad. What right do we have to inflict this on someone?
I agree that of course the schemes will need to be tweaked and LBL have said they will do this, along with pre and during scheme monitoring of traffic to determine what improvements have been seen.
Click to expand...
Cheers for the info - do you have a link to the data and scores?
 
sparkybird said:
Rushy
here's a link to the Transport Strategy Implementation Plan from the Council meeting of 18 Nov 2019 - see page 22 and Appendix A (page 25). That's all the info I have, I guess you could ask them for a breakdown of the data?
Click to expand...
Mine is 11. Funnily enough your area (I think, roughly) is a zone which I only ever drive through when following my satnav as I don't know those roads at all. I get the impression that it directs me that way when I'm headed to Croydon and traffic is heavy on the A23.
 
thanks Gramsci for putting that link in (I've still not worked out how to do it!)
Yes, my road is heavily used for through traffic and I'm sure satnavs have contributed to the issue. Hopefully not for much longer though! Please feel free to ignore your satnav in the meantime
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
Cyclist killed in Brixton
2
Replies
32
Views
2K
T & P
T & P
blameless77
After work pint in Brixton?
Replies
12
Views
799
editor
editor
editor
It's a grim Christmas around Brixton: no lights, no tree and no funfair
Replies
1
Views
744
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
editor
Coronation (and anti Coronation events this weekend in and around Brixton
Replies
5
Views
803
Gramsci
Gramsci
editor
Homophobia in Brixton
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Tulster218
T
Back
Top Bottom