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

[Jeanette Moo]

If you read it the paper analyses 150 sources of evidence, across different countries adding more in 2002 and
they found 25% of the traffic disappeared.

It's almost 20 years old. Before sat nav and google maps. Seven years before the iPhone came out.

You can't take cherry picked data from a road closure in Hobart Australia, a road closure in Nottingham in the 1970's, or data from roads that were closed for only one day and say 'hallelulia' this is the answer to our problems. Why use an old research paper when we have data from other LTNs?

What has this Waltham Forest LTN shown? I can see it is recent but can't find the data.

 

[sleaterkinney]

It's almost 20 years old. Before sat nav and google maps. Seven years before the iPhone came out.

You can't take cherry picked data from a road closure in Hobart Australia, a road closure in Nottingham in the 1970's, or data from roads that were closed for only one day and say 'hallelulia' this is the answer to our problems. Why use an old research paper when we have data from other LTNs?

What has this Waltham Forest LTN shown? I can see it is recent but can't find the data.

People still drove 20 years ago. That's only the year 2000 ffs.

Walthamstow is linked to in the article I posted: Evaporating traffic? Impact of low-traffic neighbourhoods on main roads

 

[Jeanette Moo]

Someone on Nextdoor has the Waltham data and did a write up. Will

People still drove 20 years ago. That's only the year 2000 ffs.

Walthamstow is linked to in the article I posted: Evaporating traffic? Impact of low-traffic neighbourhoods on main roads

You completely avoided the points and the facts this study points out

“At the first level, there is the perception that road capacity for general traffic has been reduced. However, any changes are offset, or more than offset, by capacity increases on other routes, or changes in traffic management, or changes in driving style, which pack more vehicles into the same space. In other words, not all examples of roadspace reallocation reduce road capacity.”

"Second, there may be a real reduction in capacity on the treated road or area, but this may be offset by adequate spare capacity on alternative routes or at other times of the day. Consequently, people may change their route or journey time, but the overall number of trips and vehicle mileage is likely to remain relatively unchanged."

 

[Jeanette Moo]

Also someone on Nextdoor has the Walthamstow data and has written it up. I'll post it later when not on lunch but it's not good.

 

[teuchter]

If by 'abandoned' you mean forcibly closed by the council oversight committee because even with their months of data it failed spectacularly and received harsh criticism from everyone from residents, to hospitals, the emergency services, schools and numerous others. They had months or years to plan it, months to analyse it and it failed. Like hand grenade failed.

Even the MP spoke out saying it was a disaster and they should have just "listened to people in the first place". Well, they're back again. Rushed in under a COVID excuse and the misery is about to begin again!

They didn't have months of data. There was supposed to be a review after 12 weeks, and this was pulled forward to 8 weeks. They attempted a review at 8 weeks under all the pressure from those calling for it to be abandoned. Your version of the responses from the emergency services:

The Fire Brigade launched a formal complaint.

The Ambulance service did raise concerns directly but did not object because they were asked to pull data in a ridiculously short period of time. The perception form their teams was higher traffic, slower response times, concerns over routes.

The fire brigade, who were annoyed that they were asked to provide the stats in an unreasonable amount of time told the council to screw themselves and formally objected anyway while giving damning feedback.

The reason they were asked to provide data in an "unreasonable amount of time" was that this review was pulled forward, earlier than it should have been. If you read the actual responses from both the fire brigade and the ambulance service, they say that their opinion at that stage is based on perception, and by definition this perception was throughout the early stages of the trials when it would be expected that disruption would be at its worst. Both of them say that they would be able to provide more objective data given time, but that opportunity was never provided.

 

[teuchter]

It's almost 20 years old. Before sat nav and google maps. Seven years before the iPhone came out.

You can't take cherry picked data from a road closure in Hobart Australia, a road closure in Nottingham in the 1970's, or data from roads that were closed for only one day and say 'hallelulia' this is the answer to our problems. Why use an old research paper when we have data from other LTNs?

What has this Waltham Forest LTN shown? I can see it is recent but can't find the data.

I've already posted this on this thread several times but if you want a more recent case study then you can look at the Ghent Circulation Plan.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Also someone on Nextdoor has the Walthamstow data and has written it up. I'll post it later when not on lunch but it's not good.

Well, do you have any proper studies of LTNs you can post up?.

 

[teuchter]

Sorry, I meant is there special access to roads for people who cannot walk or cycle because they are disabled? Or do they just have to suffer in traffic because they need to drive?
I don't like how the disabled are always forgotten.

If you mean, can blue badge cars drive through the modal filters, then as I understand it the answer is no. I am not sure if this is because of technological limitations or something else. If it's something that would be possible to implement then I would probably support it.

 

[nagapie]

If you mean, can blue badge cars drive through the modal filters, then as I understand it the answer is no. I am not sure if this is because of technological limitations or something else. If it's something that would be possible to implement then I would probably support it.

If there's the will it can be supported, blue badge holders drive through the congestion zone without charge.

 

[thebackrow]

What has this Waltham Forest LTN shown? I can see it is recent but can't find the data.

An initial rise in traffic on the boundary roads which dropped back to previous level over time. An overall drop in traffic across the whole area, reduced pollution across the whole area, trend of increases in walking and cycling (but this was after just 1 year of large parts of implantation).

Satnavs have made the problems of rat running (and the need for LTNs) much worse. They also give people a clearer indication of travel times - so they know if they're going to have to sit in congestion and maybe make a more sensible decision about how to travel. I don't see that age, location of case studies or SatNavs make any difference to the evidence for Traffic Evapaoration (which is also supported by a huge evidence base going back many more years showing that building more roads and increasing road network capacity doesn't decrease congestion, it just creates more trips and congestion stays the same. The M25 and countless suburban bypasses in the UK showing this effect. It's clear that traffic is not a fixed thing - if you make a pipe bigger, it grows to fill it, why is it so inconceivable that if you make the pipe smaller it shrinks to the space now allocated?

 

[thebackrow]

If you mean, can blue badge cars drive through the modal filters, then as I understand it the answer is no. I am not sure if this is because of technological limitations or something else. If it's something that would be possible to implement then I would probably support it.

Why? Most of these filters shouldn't be cameras - they should be full width closures (maybe with removable bollards or gates for emergency services if needed). In nearly all cases the penalty on travel time is a few minutes (not 'hours') and cars are not the only way disabled people get about. BUT from a simple, practical perspective blue badges are linked to a person not a vehicle.

 

[thebackrow]

If there's the will it can be supported, blue badge holders drive through the congestion zone without charge.

It's described as 100% discount, so I'm guessing they have to go into their congestion charge account and 'buy' a pass for that day for the vehicle they are using (which has no cost). theres also a real justification for it - CCZone adds significant cost to travel anywhere in zone 1 (basically). We're talking about what is really a minor inconvenience in the case of an LTN

 

[teuchter]

In nearly all cases the penalty on travel time is a few minutes (not 'hours') and cars are not the only way disabled people get about.

Agreed.

But, from a pragmatic point of view, if it were relatively simple to make it a feature of those gates that need to be controlled by camera anyway, then it might as well be done if it would reduce the number of reasons people could object.

If it's something that's complicated to implement and which would compromise the functioning of the scheme then I agree with you, the additional small inconvenience to car-owning disabled people is outweighed by the benefits to all of those disabled people who have to rely on other means of transport.

 

[nagapie]

It's described as 100% discount, so I'm guessing they have to go into their congestion charge account and 'buy' a pass for that day for the vehicle they are using (which has no cost). theres also a real justification for it - CCZone adds significant cost to travel anywhere in zone 1 (basically). We're talking about what is really a minor inconvenience in the case of an LTN

I already know blue badge holders can, rightly, go through the congestion charge for free if they pay a one off £10 fee.
I don't agree there is no justification for it in this scheme, which is designed to deter people from driving by making it more inconvenient. So a group of the population who already experience significant hardship will have their difficulties added to because right on transport schemes don't audit or can't be bothered to provide for disabled people. Just more marginalisation, more invisibility.

 

[teuchter]

right on transport schemes don't audit or can't be bothered to provide for disabled people.

I don't think that's true.

 

[nagapie]

I don't think that's true.

This one hasn't.

 

[teuchter]

This one hasn't.

How do you know?

 

[nagapie]

How do you know?

Because there's no special accessibility for blue badge holders.

 

[teuchter]

Because there's no special accessibility for blue badge holders.

That doesn't tell you that it hasn't been considered. It may well have been considered, and decided that it was not practical, due to technical limitations, or necessary, due to the fact that no areas are made inaccessible and that the increase in journey times was considered tolerable. You might disagree with the conclusions but that doesn't mean it wasn't considered.

 

[nagapie]

That doesn't tell you that it hasn't been considered. It may well have been considered, and decided that it was not practical, due to technical limitations, or necessary, due to the fact that no areas are made inaccessible and that the increase in journey times was considered tolerable. You might disagree with the conclusions but that doesn't mean it wasn't considered.

Technical means cost, money before accessibility and inclusion.
I said didn't audit or couldn't be bothered. Not being willing to spend more to make a scheme more accessible fits into the latter.

 

[sparkybird]

In the digital age when we can plan a route in 30 seconds on our phone we find out that 2-3 months is not enough time for people to adjust? Even with google maps the traffic was obscene!

Not everyone uses sat nav or Google maps though.

 

[teuchter]

Technical means cost, money before accessibility and inclusion.
I said didn't audit or couldn't be bothered. Not being willing to spend more to make a scheme more accessible fits into the latter.

It would fit into the latter if funding wasn't finite.

 

[nagapie]

It would fit into the latter if funding wasn't finite.

When finite excludes the needs of any sector of the population, in this case those with disabilities, it becomes exclusion.

 

[Loose meat]

Not everyone uses sat nav or Google maps though.

Though the reason LTNs are felt necessary by some is fulleed by the rise of both tools, both of which encourage and direct drivers to use residential streets as 'short cuts'. Once someone knows the 'better' route, they will always use it.
It's also why the social housing estates to the north have suddenly become more popular - SatNav redirecting people who would have used Atlantic Road, the Railton area, or CHL (but don't now suggest CHL becasue it shows on their satnav as too busy). So we're already into secondary redirecting (away from the already redirected congestion to new congestion) and it's still the summer school holidays ..

 

[teuchter]

When finite excludes the needs of any sector of the population, in this case those with disabilities, it becomes exclusion.

These schemes do not exclude the needs of those with disabilities.
For some of those with a disability and access to a car, it may lengthen some of their journey times by a small amount.
For some those with a disability and no access to a car, it is likely to reduce exclusion.

 

[nagapie]

These schemes do not exclude the needs of those with disabilities.
For some of those with a disability and access to a car, it may lengthen some of their journey times by a small amount.
For some those with a disability and no access to a car, it is likely to reduce exclusion.

I'm not sure what consultation was done with those with disabilities but I can already tell you that just in this short discussion one other poster and myself are already perceiving problems as we live with blue badge holders. Journey times with people with disabilities are already longer due to a number of factors, now added to by your 'small amount' which may be a longer amount if there are traffic jams. You assume a lot of things, typical of a person who doesn't have to manage disabilities on a day to day.
How is it likely to reduce exclusion for those without access to a car?

 

[editor]

This does rather suggest that local consultation was not exactly comprehensive

Residents demand disabled access for Brixton/Herne Hill low traffic neighbourhood scheme, July 2020

Two home made banners have appeared on Shakespeare Road in response to the Railton Low Traffic Neighbourhood scheme which was introduced last month.

www.brixtonbuzz.com

 

[teuchter]

I'm not sure what consultation was done with those with disabilities but I can already tell you that just in this short discussion one other poster and myself are already perceiving problems as we live with blue badge holders. Journey times with people with disabilities are already longer due to a number of factors, now added to by your 'small amount' which may be a longer amount if there are traffic jams.

If I were responsible for designing and monitoring one of these schemes (I'm not) then I'd certainly want to hear about and understand individual cases, and make adjustments where necessary. If it seemed an LTN was massively increasing journey times then I'd want to understand why, make sure it was really the LTN that was responsible for the delays and also give things time to settle down before jumping to conclusions, as discussed many times over.

typical of a person who doesn't have to manage disabilities on a day to day.

Not sure you can really tell me off for assuming things and then write this.

How is it likely to reduce exclusion for those without access to a car?

For example, there are lots of people with mobility issues, or visual or hearing impairments, who are able to walk a short distance but are put off from doing so by busy/dangerous/noisy roads. Might be a simple matter of how easy it is to cross the road. This kind of thing stops people from getting to local shops, bus stops, social events.

In a bigger picture sense, there are disabilities that mean people are unable to drive, whether or not they can afford a car. Car dependency is hugely exclusionary to those people.

And finally looking at things from the finite resources point of view, going a little outside of the scope of the LTNs I think it can make perfect sense to decide, for example, that money is better spent on things like making public transport fully accessible to all, than it is for minimising inconvenience to that portion of disabled people who have the privilege of private car access.

 

[nagapie]

And finally looking at things from the finite resources point of view, going a little outside of the scope of the LTNs I think it can make perfect sense to decide, for example, that money is better spent on things like making public transport fully accessible to all, than it is for minimising inconvenience to that portion of disabled people who have the privilege of private car access.

This paragraph on its own shows how little you understand about the issues involved.

Public transport on the whole is not very accessible at all for people with various disabilities and this scheme is not addressing that, you're clutching at straws. This is why many people make use of the motability scheme, which you do not need to be privileged to access just in receipt of DLA.

 

[teuchter]

This paragraph on its own shows how little you understand about the issues involved.

Public transport on the whole is not very accessible at all for people with various disabilities and this scheme is not addressing that, you're clutching at straws. This is why many people make use of the motability scheme, which you do not need to be privileged to access just in receipt of DLA.

You need to be physically able to drive, or have someone who can drive for you, do you not? It's not a solution that is available to all people with disabilities.