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

[nagapie]

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.

I think you will find that all disabled children, at least, have parents who are also carers.
And many, if not the majority, are forced to drive because public transport is not suitable for children with behavioural and medical needs and barely suitable for those with mobility needs.
I wonder if the education transport buses will be allowed access to these now closed routes? Most of the children that travel on those already have very extended transport times to school because, you know, resources are finite.

 

[sparkybird]

The whole effect of an LTN is that it is High Traffic eveywhere around it - pollution is more concentrated. The peole posting here live on CHL.

I was responding to your complaint that there was not a single cycle lane inside an LTN and trying to explain why that was, but if you want to ignore that bit, go ahead. And I wasn't aware that this thread was only for people who live on CHL

 

[sparkybird]

nagapie with apologies if you have already done this - can you voice your concerns also on the official consultation website with specific examples of the impact on people with disabilities? And encourage others to do so as well? For example your point about the school buses is really important. As I understand it, the schemes can be adjusted to take account of issues that arise following their rather speedy implementation.
Assuming Railton is your area:

Comment on the temporary scheme

Give us your feedback on the temporary project and let us know about any specific improvements or issues by marking them on a map of the area

rtstreets.commonplace.is

 

[Gramsci]

I looked up the motability scheme.

Motability Scheme | Lease a car, WAV, scooter or wheelchair

Use your mobility allowance to lease a brand-new car, Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle (WAV), scooter or powered wheelchair through the Motability Scheme.

www.motability.co.uk

The Motability Scheme enables anyone in receipt of a higher rate mobility allowance (such as the Enhanced Rate of the Mobility Component of Personal Independence Payment or the Higher Rate Mobility Component of Disability Living Allowance) to use their mobility allowance to lease a car, scooter, powered wheelchair or Wheelchair Accessible Vehicle.

The assumption on this thread from some posters is that car ownership denotes privilege. They are sticking up for the deprived by curbing its use.

This is simplistic view.

For a disabled person the car gives them a level of independence they would not have had decades ago.

This is progress. Cars for some disabled mean they can have a fuller life. A life with dignity.

 

[Gramsci]

The thing I don't get about discussion of LTNs here is that on the one hand:

They are meant to make it more difficult to get around by car. So after a while people will learn new behaviors and for example walk to shops and back.

But when a poster says they find it more difficult to get around there is long series of posts about LTNs having little impact on getting around by car.

I don't get it.

 

[sleaterkinney]

The thing I don't get about discussion of LTNs here is that on the one hand:

They are meant to make it more difficult to get around by car. So after a while people will learn new behaviors and for example walk to shops and back.

But when a poster says they find it more difficult to get around there is long series of posts about LTNs having little impact on getting around by car.

I don't get it.

These are still very new, so we are in that phase of learning new behaviours.

That said, disabled badge holders should be exempt but I can only presume it would cost to register and admin it.

 

[teuchter]

The thing I don't get about discussion of LTNs here is that on the one hand:

They are meant to make it more difficult to get around by car. So after a while people will learn new behaviors and for example walk to shops and back.

But when a poster says they find it more difficult to get around there is long series of posts about LTNs having little impact on getting around by car.

I don't get it.

It's not that difficult to understand - there has to be a balance struck - the relative convenience of short car journeys made such that people will be persuaded to change behaviours, but not made so inconvenient that it becomes completely unreasonable for those who genuinely do need to use a car. And if there's not a system to exempt blue badge holders, then that obviously has some impact on what can be called reasonable.

As for privilege - it's great if the motability scheme can provide some disabled people mobility and independence - a good solution for those for whom it can work - but let's not pretend that this is a solution for all or most people with a disability.

If we are talking about mobility, then someone who has a disability which does not prevent them from driving a car (whether it's bought independently or provided via motability) does have a privilege over someone whose disability does not allow them to drive, and who does not have someone to drive them. They have to rely on public transport, walking, or other services.

If a livable neighbourhood scheme means that someone with a disability and a car can get everywhere they want to, but some journeys they make take a bit longer than they used to, then I think that's OK if it allows other people, with a whole range of disabilities that either don't allow them to drive or don't qualify them for things like the motability scheme, to have more freedom to do stuff like make independent trips to the local shops and other places.

If a scheme can be devised such that blue badge holders are exempt then that seems like the ideal solution, which is why I said above that I'd likely support it.

 

[organicpanda]

Curious you said you enquired and the Coucil said no money to look into these problems. Not criticising. So that is what the Council said to you? If so that is concerning.

it was actually when the car smashed our wall, email from the councillor said that more needed to be done but there was no money due to TFL taking away the funding

 

[Gramsci]

It's not that difficult to understand - there has to be a balance struck - the relative convenience of short car journeys made such that people will be persuaded to change behaviours, but not made so inconvenient that it becomes completely unreasonable for those who genuinely do need to use a car. And if there's not a system to exempt blue badge holders, then that obviously has some impact on what can be called reasonable.

As for privilege - it's great if the motability scheme can provide some disabled people mobility and independence - a good solution for those for whom it can work - but let's not pretend that this is a solution for all or most people with a disability.

If we are talking about mobility, then someone who has a disability which does not prevent them from driving a car (whether it's bought independently or provided via motability) does have a privilege over someone whose disability does not allow them to drive, and who does not have someone to drive them. They have to rely on public transport, walking, or other services.

If a livable neighbourhood scheme means that someone with a disability and a car can get everywhere they want to, but some journeys they make take a bit longer than they used to, then I think that's OK if it allows other people, with a whole range of disabilities that either don't allow them to drive or don't qualify them for things like the motability scheme, to have more freedom to do stuff like make independent trips to the local shops and other places.

If a scheme can be devised such that blue badge holders are exempt then that seems like the ideal solution, which is why I said above that I'd likely support it.

It might be idea if Council asked disabled people what they what. Rather than assumptions be made for them. I do hope the Council will be doing that whilst these temporary LTNs are in place.

I certainly don't know much about diability. I know a little and disability its not straightforward. Its not clear cut distinctions between which disabled person is more privileged than another.

Im glad nagapie has brought the issue of disability up.

 

[Jeanette Moo]

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 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.

They had 8 weeks+ to gather data. They wanted 12 weeks. Doesn't sound unreasonable.

The 'unreasonable amount of time' relates to the amount of time that the emergency services were given to respond. They were consulted with regards tot he LTNs the same way people were. No special meetings. When Andy (ambulance service) spoke at the council meetings he plainly said he had been given three days to submit opinion and data relating to response times. They did not have the manpower spare to have someone work out every emergency services call which went through this area and compare it to similar calls.

To summarise some findings of official submissions

London Ambulance Service

The London Ambulance Service stated that it will not formally object to the scheme as it is too early to conclusively measure any perceived increase in journey times. However, their official response raised concerns regarding;

1. A perceived increase in traffic congestion
2. The reduction in available routes for general motor traffic having a knock-on effect on other roads and the potential to increase response and journey times
3. The use of physical barriers at a number of the closures reduces the number of available routes to emergency crews
4. Possible increases in pollution generated from stationary/slow moving traffic

London Fire Brigade

The London Fire Brigade has raised a formal objection to the scheme based on;

1. Gridlocked roads throughout the Coldharbour Lane area
2. Specifically total gridlock at most times of the day and evening in Coldharbour Lane, Herne Hill Road, Hinton Road, Gresham Road and Barrington Road
3. Antisocial behaviour and poor/dangerous driving being witnessed by drivers including 3 point turns on crowded roads and driving on pavements
4. A significant knock on effect to surrounding roads as commuters and residents try and circumvent the closures
5. Coldharbour Lane is Primary Route for attending incidents and as such reduced attendance times have been experienced It was stated that it is too early to provide empirical data or evidence confirming the increase in journey times but the objection stands.

Metropolitan Police Service

The Metropolitan Police Service stated that it would raise no objection to the scheme at this stage as it is too early for any measurable analysis to have taken place

Kings College Hospital

KCT submitted a three page response to the review and the issues raised by KCH can be summarised as follows:

1. Better efforts should have been made at engagement with KCH before the introduction of the closures
2. Staff have experienced significant delays when travelling by bus or car
3. Delays and local road congestion is a cause for concern for patients, visitors and staff
4. Staff feedback of patients reporting difficulty arriving for appointment on time
5. An increase in queuing around Cutcombe and Caldicott Road, the main vehicle access routes to the hospital car park
6. Staff experiencing delays of between 20-30 minutes, results of which include added stress and an impact on managing work/life schedules including childcare
7. Concerns about road safety for pedestrians and cyclists

Loughborough Estate Management Board

A written submission from the Chair of the LEMB raised a number of concerns including:

1. The detrimental effect on residents, staff, businesses and visitors to and from the estate 10
2. Vehicles using the private estate roads as a cut through and rat run to avoid the Barrington Road closure, endangering the lives of children and residents
3. Access difficulties for healthcare professionals and carers needing to visit vulnerable residents on the estate
4. Missed appointments at King’s College Hospital due to congestion of Coldharbour Lane
5. The effect of the closures on local businesses and longer journey times

Loughborough School

The deputy head teacher at Loughborough Primary School raised the following concerns;

1. Complaints from teachers, other staff and the community
2. Journey times increasing due to build-up of traffic on Coldharbour Lane, Atlantic Road and Shakespeare Road
3. Increased traffic on estate roads
4. Confusion over traffic restrictions particularly in Barrington Road

and so on

 

[Jeanette Moo]

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.

With all the amazing LTNs in tn the UK why are people focusing on overseas? The council can't plant a tree without giving a write up of the impact so why not pick something in the UK? In London?

Let's look at Waltham Forest / Walthamstow LTN put in place in 2015 - the one that everyone keeps raving about. This content is from another user on Nextdoor but is COUNCIL DATA - source below

--------------------------

http://www.enjoywalthamforest.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Village-Review-Report-FINAL.pdf

Headline data "16 percent reduction in use of cars!"...but actual car use was only reduced by net one percent.



Walking and cycling up heavily but bear in mind there is the possibility of dirty data - original survey was September (possibly bad weather, schools, etc) and follow up survey was June/July -(so better weather and possibly schools closed.




Residents view on journeys. Heavy swing to worse - i.e even if you are in an LTN....you're surrounded by traffic when you want to get out.



Net results shows traffic swing to only have improved by 1%




When residents decided to leave a comment it was 'open the roads please'.





Only 2...not 2%...just two visitors to the area said the LTN made them decide to change their method of transport (and it doesn't say what the change was!)




47% of businesses say customer numbers decreased. 53% say turnover decreased. They do not split out 'increased' and 'stayed the same' which is worrying from an analysis point of view




56% of businesses said their suppliers had difficulty reaching them




46% of businesses against the scheme



Overall view of the LTN

 

[Jeanette Moo]

Not everyone uses sat nav or Google maps though.

You don't actually challenge points you nit pick and inane comments like it makes them null.

So lets think about this;

We had google and sat nav moving people away from the traffic. in that area. In 2 months (8+ months for some streets!) people still had not adapt their behaviours because the traffic was still immense,....but with more time people would have changed....

 

[Jeanette Moo]

The thing I don't get about discussion of LTNs here is that on the one hand:

They are meant to make it more difficult to get around by car. So after a while people will learn new behaviors and for example walk to shops and back.

But when a poster says they find it more difficult to get around there is long series of posts about LTNs having little impact on getting around by car.

I don't get it.

In short they don't work or change behaviour See Loughborough Junction, see Walthamstow Forest/Village.

Look at all the alternatives. Amazon, online shopping (food, clothes etc), deliveroo, zipcar, uber, more buses, more bus routes, boris bikes, more cycle lanes. We have more choice than ever for not having a car.

Those who want to drive will keep driving and driving in London has been on the decrease since the late 90's. This is about creating as much misery as possible to speed up a process that is happening naturally anyway. I'm a legal courier and I am literally anxious at the thought of having to cycle through the idle traffic caused by a single LTN let alone the 3+ thrown into Lambeth alone.

 

[Jeanette Moo]

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

See above/below at some point - waiting moderator approval because of pictures.

 

[sparkybird]

You don't actually challenge points you nit pick and inane comments like it makes them null.

Not sure how that's a nit pick, I don't use sat nav for example. And so sorry if you find my comments inane. Not sure that automatically makes them null though.

 

[sleaterkinney]

You don't actually challenge points you nit pick and inane comments like it makes them null.

So lets think about this;

We had google and sat nav moving people away from the traffic. in that area. In 2 months (8+ months for some streets!) people still had not adapt their behaviours because the traffic was still immense,....but with more time people would have changed....

8 weeks is not long enough for changes to bed in. I know loads of people who don’t use sat nav.

 

[Winot]

In short they don't work or change behaviour See Loughborough Junction, see Walthamstow Forest/Village.

The Walthamstow scheme (which was completed unlike LJ) has changed behaviour. Walking and cycle use up.

'Mini-Holland' schemes have proved their worth in outer London boroughs | Peter Walker

Peter Walker: First formal study into their impact finds that boroughs with the schemes have boosted walking and cycling rates

www.theguardian.com

 

[nagapie]

It's not that difficult to understand - there has to be a balance struck - the relative convenience of short car journeys made such that people will be persuaded to change behaviours, but not made so inconvenient that it becomes completely unreasonable for those who genuinely do need to use a car. And if there's not a system to exempt blue badge holders, then that obviously has some impact on what can be called reasonable.

As for privilege - it's great if the motability scheme can provide some disabled people mobility and independence - a good solution for those for whom it can work - but let's not pretend that this is a solution for all or most people with a disability.

If we are talking about mobility, then someone who has a disability which does not prevent them from driving a car (whether it's bought independently or provided via motability) does have a privilege over someone whose disability does not allow them to drive, and who does not have someone to drive them. They have to rely on public transport, walking, or other services.

If a livable neighbourhood scheme means that someone with a disability and a car can get everywhere they want to, but some journeys they make take a bit longer than they used to, then I think that's OK if it allows other people, with a whole range of disabilities that either don't allow them to drive or don't qualify them for things like the motability scheme, to have more freedom to do stuff like make independent trips to the local shops and other places.

If a scheme can be devised such that blue badge holders are exempt then that seems like the ideal solution, which is why I said above that I'd likely support it.

There's a lot of made up stuff in this post that you're hoping might be true. I would suggest from both personal and professional standpoints of my experience of disability, that only a fraction holds any merit.
Nevertheless the point still remains that people with disabilities feel excluded from this process and tweaking the scheme so it could be more helpful to those who do access motability is possible and should always be done. In fact I've had the finite resources argument from the mayor's office before. It was and remains a crap argument.

 

[Jeanette Moo]

The Walthamstow scheme (which was completed unlike LJ) has changed behaviour. Walking and cycle use up.

'Mini-Holland' schemes have proved their worth in outer London boroughs | Peter Walker

Peter Walker: First formal study into their impact finds that boroughs with the schemes have boosted walking and cycling rates

www.theguardian.com

Positive....but no impact on car use. One year on.

Also I can't find when they sent the surveys (unless I missed it?). As we saw with Waltham when you ask people if they are cycling & walking more in summer the stats go up massively.

"Firstly, Mini-Holland status (particularly being in the high-dose area) was associated with increased use of active travel at Wave 1,including an increased likelihood of any participation in past-week cycling. One-year findings show as yet no evidence of change in car use. Secondly, mini-Holland status (particularly being in the high-dose area) was associated with increasingly positive perception of the local cycling environment, and therefore a more positive overall perception of the local environment. "

and their own criticism

"However, there are weaknesses. Study power was relatively low, particularly for one of our primary outcomes, past-week cycling.Response rate was extremely low, and our sample does not fully represent the demographics of control or intervention areas (al-though the nature and the magnitude of the selection bias seems to be operating similarly between our intervention and controlgroups). The sample is made up of a combination of respondents to a household leaflet, and respondents from two TfL customerdatabases. This type of convenience sampling is common in evaluation studies of transport interventions (e.g.Crane et al., 2017;Panter et al., 2016), which tend to assume changes in a non-typical sample provide some proxy indication of changes in the widerpopulation. However, a more representative sample would provide more confidence that changes here are generalisable"

 

[sleaterkinney]

To summarise some findings of official submissions

London Ambulance Service

The London Ambulance Service stated that it will not formally object to the scheme as it is too early to conclusively measure any perceived increase in journey times. However, their official response raised concerns regarding;

1. A perceived increase in traffic congestion
2. The reduction in available routes for general motor traffic having a knock-on effect on other roads and the potential to increase response and journey times
3. The use of physical barriers at a number of the closures reduces the number of available routes to emergency crews
4. Possible increases in pollution generated from stationary/slow moving traffic

Metropolitan Police Service

The Metropolitan Police Service stated that it would raise no objection to the scheme at this stage as it is too early for any measurable analysis to have taken place


and so on

You're actually just posting up stuff which proves my points. Bizarre.

 

[Jeanette Moo]

You're actually just posting up stuff which proves my points. Bizarre.

As mentioned - an Ambulance service representative (Andy?) stood up at the meetings and, in addition to saying he was seeing delays, he said he literally could not compile the data in the 3 days the council gave them before they said they were forming the report. hmmm strange that. He had the data but could not pull it together in time - remember they are in Oval. Imagine having days to work out every amulance that had to go through that area, compare it to older journeys, etc.

He just took the opinion of his paramedics.

 

[teuchter]

They had 8 weeks+ to gather data. They wanted 12 weeks. Doesn't sound unreasonable.

It's not unreasonable. Like I already said, the scheme was designed to have feedback at the 12 week point. That didn't happen, because under pressure Lambeth pulled the review period forwards by a month. They shouldn't have done that. The result is that all the responses we have are based only on the initial period of operation, the period where disruption is not unexpected. This was compounded by the fact that the scheme was barely enforced at the beginning, with many people continuing to simply drive through the barriers. So it didn't even really come into play until some point into that 8 week period.

The 'unreasonable amount of time' relates to the amount of time that the emergency services were given to respond. They were consulted with regards tot he LTNs the same way people were. No special meetings. When Andy (ambulance service) spoke at the council meetings he plainly said he had been given three days to submit opinion and data relating to response times. They did not have the manpower spare to have someone work out every emergency services call which went through this area and compare it to similar calls.

To summarise some findings of official submissions

London Ambulance Service

The London Ambulance Service stated that it will not formally object to the scheme as it is too early to conclusively measure any perceived increase in journey times. However, their official response raised concerns regarding;

1. A perceived increase in traffic congestion
2. The reduction in available routes for general motor traffic having a knock-on effect on other roads and the potential to increase response and journey times
3. The use of physical barriers at a number of the closures reduces the number of available routes to emergency crews
4. Possible increases in pollution generated from stationary/slow moving traffic

The pattern with each of these organisations is that they are reporting perceived increase in journey times in the early stages of the scheme. There is some back and forth with the council where things like physical barriers which weren't supposed to be there are removed. There's also some discussion of the problematic temporary traffic lights that were operating at the Herne Hill Rd junction, and at some point these are removed and an improvement in traffic flow is observed. In actual fact, the last email from the LAS states that they have looked at the data, and this is what they say:

The data is now back from our Management Information department and whilst there isn’t conclusive evidence that journey times on emergency calls in the area are significantly extended, there are indications that some journeys are being extended. However whilst we would still like to maintain our position that it is likely that journey times have been detrimentally impacted upon by the scheme, we would not be comfortable using such a small dataset (an eight week period which appears to show times increasing in the range of 1 to 2 minutes on average), to formally object to the scheme.

Confirmation that road closures will not be maintained with physical barriers if the scheme were to be approved also provides some reassurance regarding access and running times.

 

[Jeanette Moo]

Found an article talking about his comments.

Not 'Andy' - John.

In addition - when the council asks for data which they don't actually want to see they do exactly this - give a few days. It's like when a reporter is about to announce a story and just before they click submit they send an email to the person/company asking for comment. They don't really want a comment they just want to say they asked and received nothing back

 

[sleaterkinney]

As mentioned - an Ambulance service representative (Andy?) stood up at the meetings and, in addition to saying he was seeing delays, he said he literally could not compile the data in the 3 days the council gave them before they said they were forming the report. hmmm strange that. He had the data but could not pull it together in time - remember they are in Oval. Imagine having days to work out every amulance that had to go through that area, compare it to older journeys, etc.

He just took the opinion of his paramedics.

What part of this sentence are you not understanding?

The London Ambulance Service stated that it will not formally object to the scheme as it is too early to conclusively measure any perceived increase in journey times.

 

[Jeanette Moo]

What part of this sentence are you not understanding?

The London Ambulance Service stated that it will not formally object to the scheme as it is too early to conclusively measure any perceived increase in journey times.

They did state that an increase in traffic and stood up at council meetings to state there was an impact to journey times. As did the fire brigade, as did representatives for local hospitals.

Have you ever tried to pull together stats around journey times pre and post implementation for a small area which you cover? The council sits there having a dedicated team counting cars on CCTV; these services have to actually pull together detailed stats which could take months AND pull resources from other needed teams. They said their bit, they were not prepared to put the leg work into disproving something they already stood up and said hurts them and was in the process of being booted out.

 

[sleaterkinney]

They did state that an increase in traffic and stood up at council meetings to state there was an impact to journey times. As did the fire brigade, as did representatives for local hospitals.

Have you ever tried to pull together stats around journey times pre and post implementation for a small area which you cover? The council sits there having a dedicated team counting cars on CCTV; these services have to actually pull together detailed stats which could take months AND pull resources from other needed teams. They said their bit, they were not prepared to put the leg work into disproving something they already stood up and said hurts them and was in the process of being booted out.

They said that is too early to conclusively measure any perceived increase in journey times. Which it was.

 

[teuchter]

With all the amazing LTNs in tn the UK why are people focusing on overseas? The council can't plant a tree without giving a write up of the impact so why not pick something in the UK? In London?

Let's look at Waltham Forest / Walthamstow LTN put in place in 2015 - the one that everyone keeps raving about. This content is from another user on Nextdoor but is COUNCIL DATA - source below

--------------------------

http://www.enjoywalthamforest.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Village-Review-Report-FINAL.pdf

Headline data "16 percent reduction in use of cars!"...but actual car use was only reduced by net one percent.

View attachment 227102

Walking and cycling up heavily but bear in mind there is the possibility of dirty data - original survey was September (possibly bad weather, schools, etc) and follow up survey was June/July -(so better weather and possibly schools closed.

View attachment 227104


Residents view on journeys. Heavy swing to worse - i.e even if you are in an LTN....you're surrounded by traffic when you want to get out.

View attachment 227105

Net results shows traffic swing to only have improved by 1%

View attachment 227106


When residents decided to leave a comment it was 'open the roads please'.


View attachment 227107


Only 2...not 2%...just two visitors to the area said the LTN made them decide to change their method of transport (and it doesn't say what the change was!)

View attachment 227108


47% of businesses say customer numbers decreased. 53% say turnover decreased. They do not split out 'increased' and 'stayed the same' which is worrying from an analysis point of view

View attachment 227110


56% of businesses said their suppliers had difficulty reaching them

View attachment 227111


46% of businesses against the scheme

View attachment 227112

Overall view of the LTN

I could also go through that report and pull out the individual graphs that show the most positive results.

It's true that the findings at that point were that residents were not using their cars less, even though people seemed to be walking and cycling more.

The results from traffic counts did show quite substantial differences though, with the amount of traffic, and speeds, within the zone decreasing.



Yes, they observed increases on some surrounding roads but the view of the report (which I know many will disagree with) is that these are outweighed by the benefits seen within the zone.

 

[Jeanette Moo]

"The data is now back from our Management Information department and whilst there isn’t conclusive evidence that journey times on emergency calls in the area are significantly extended, there are indications that some journeys are being extended. However whilst we would still like to maintain our position that it is likely that journey times have been detrimentally impacted upon by the scheme, we would not be comfortable using such a small dataset (an eight week period which appears to show times increasing in the range of 1 to 2 minutes on average), to formally object to the scheme.

Confirmation that road closures will not be maintained with physical barriers if the scheme were to be approved also provides some reassurance regarding access and running times. "

What's the source for this? The average ambulance service responds to emergency calls in under 7 minutes. 1-2 minutes is almost a 30% increase

 

[Jeanette Moo]

I could also go through that report and pull out the individual graphs that show the most positive results.

It's true that the findings at that point were that residents were not using their cars less, even though people seemed to be walking and cycling more.

The results from traffic counts did show quite substantial differences though, with the amount of traffic, and speeds, within the zone decreasing.

View attachment 227134

Yes, they observed increases on some surrounding roads but the view of the report (which I know many will disagree with) is that these are outweighed by the benefits seen within the zone.

View attachment 227135

Surprise and roads are closed off and traffic on said roads reduces. In other news water is wet.

It also reports that public transport both within and outside the zone saw increases in journey times. One route from 18 minutes to 25 minutes (main report)

 

[teuchter]

"The data is now back from our Management Information department and whilst there isn’t conclusive evidence that journey times on emergency calls in the area are significantly extended, there are indications that some journeys are being extended. However whilst we would still like to maintain our position that it is likely that journey times have been detrimentally impacted upon by the scheme, we would not be comfortable using such a small dataset (an eight week period which appears to show times increasing in the range of 1 to 2 minutes on average), to formally object to the scheme.

Confirmation that road closures will not be maintained with physical barriers if the scheme were to be approved also provides some reassurance regarding access and running times. "

What's the source for this? The average ambulance service responds to emergency calls in under 7 minutes. 1-2 minutes is almost a 30% increase

It's in the appendix to the Lambeth report. The chain of emails is there.