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

[Jeanette Moo]

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

......but still stood up and said it was noticeable. They did not have the manpower or time to measure the impact but firmly threw their hat in the 'NOT GOOD' pile.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[teuchter]

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)

Here's what it actually says about bus performance. Please excuse messy formatting.

Some routes see a slight increase, some see a slight improvement.

Summary of bus performance

1. Due to the number of bus routes running on the surrounding roads any changes in bus performance before and after the implementation of the scheme will give us an indication of the overall performance of the wider road network. TfL has a number of key bus journey performance indicators, which are: Journey times, Excess waiting times and mileage completed.
   • The run time of the W12 bus route through the Village has changed slightly but with the majority of buses running very close to their scheduled times. There were some variations between scheduled and actual run times during the afternoon period of 3pm to 5pm, but the biggest average variation was three minutes behind schedule.
   • On low frequency routes, such as the W12, TfL uses the percentage of buses departing on time rather than excess time a passenger waits for a bus as a key indicator. The percentage of W12’s departing on time has dipped slightly since the introduction of the scheme. In addition the mileage completed has reduced from 99% to 94%. Further work is required with TfL to review this route.
     • 
       On the wider network, average bus journey times (based on those examined) have increased slightly since 2015, with routes experiencing an average increase of 8.6% in both directions of travel. This could be because of an increase in traffic on the main boundary roads around the Village. However, due to the length of the routes examined there are likely to be other factors that have influenced journey times on the bus network and it is difficult to attribute the observed changes directly, and solely, to the Walthamstow Village Scheme. Several routes that do not use the village boundary roads were examined for control purposes (158 and 58) and these saw similar increased between the study periods indicating wider trends across the borough taking place as well.
       
     • 
       In order to reduce the impact of factors external to the immediate Walthamstow Village area, shorter sections of certain routes were analysed during peak times against the three key performance indicators. The two routes analysed were the 56 and 97.
       
     • 
       It appears that bus journey times on the 56 and 97 have increased slightly in certain directions during the morning and afternoon peak periods, however, most of the fluctuations in journey time were less than one minute. The 56 saw no significant variation in journey time, suggesting that this part of Lea Bridge Road has not been affected.
       
     • 
       The afternoon peak for route 97, in the northbound direction to Chingford, was observed to have the most significant increase in journey time. One period of comparison showed an increase of seven minutes from 18.1 minutes pre-scheme (April - June 2015) to 25.1 minutes post scheme (April – June 2016). However, another period (Feb/March 2015 compared to February/march 2016) showed smaller increases of 3.9 minutes. This suggests some additional congestion during the peak period on Hoe Street, however, when comparing different journey time data sets from 2015 (before the start of the scheme) there was a already a 3 minute increase between Feb/march and May/June, suggesting some level of seasonal variation, and/or other factors affecting the network, and therefore bus journey time changes cannot be solely contributed to the impacts of the scheme.
     • 
       
     • 
       
     • Excess waiting time on route 56 has actually reduced since the introduction of the scheme. During construction, there was a slight increase however over the last four periods we have data for this has reduced to below one minute, and is consistently lower than the times pre-scheme.
       Route 97 has seen a slight increase in the excess waiting time post scheme. However, there is one result that is well above the rest suggesting that other factors have influenced the results. During this period (November 2016) works had started on Walthamstow gyratory and therefore this may have caused further delays to the route.
     • 
       
     • 
       
     • Bus route 56 has become more reliable with a high percentage of mileage complete compared to the schedule. Bus Route 97 very close to the percentage scheduled, the change has been relatively minor and is currently operating at around 98%, compared to 99% before.
       
       

 

[Jeanette Moo]

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

So up to a 30% increase in emergency response times....and that is just time to patient. Add time to hospital and it's more (and Kings Hospital highlighted their own issues around traffic)

 

[sleaterkinney]

......but still stood up and said it was noticeable. They did not have the manpower or time to measure the impact but firmly threw their hat in the 'NOT GOOD' pile.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

What is this bullshit?. One paramedic in a meeting Vs their official response.

 

[teuchter]

So up to a 30% increase in emergency response times....and that is just time to patient. Add time to hospital and it's more (and Kings Hospital highlighted their own issues around traffic)

We don't know whether it's time to patient, or how the increases stacked up over different types of callout. What we do know is that the amount of data was insufficient to come to a conclusion either way, that it was based only on the very initial, maximal disruption, period of operation, that it would very likely have changed over time, and that the LAS decided they did not want to object to the scheme.

 

[Jeanette Moo]

What is this bullshit?. One paramedic in a meeting Vs their official response.

Let's summarise what we had:

1.) An Ambulance Service Team Leader, responsible for one of three entire shifts, represented the ambulance service and spend his 5 minutes at the meeting lambasting the LTN He gave information fed back from the Oval Service as a whole. Congestion, traffic, delays, barriers. He did this in a room full of residents, business owners and - importantly - local press. He knew he was a spokesman for Oval Ambulance Service. He introduced himself as such - I was one of the few hundred in the room.

In addition he said it was difficult for them to quantify exact measurements because they would need a dedicated team to analyse the routes, typical response times and other factors. The Fire Brigade (not present at the meeting) said similar - gridlock, not enough time to measure (the 8 week period does seem pretty important BUT they all said despite the measurement difficulties they were confident giving such feedback.)

2.) Figures from the Ambulance Service in which they say delays of 1-2 minutes were seen which is an average increase of up to 30% on an emergency call out times.

Just because they did not formally object does not make the impact evidence and their statements any less relevant

 

[Jeanette Moo]

From the London Fire Brigade appendix comments:

" In the opinion of some of my longer serving officers at Brixton they have never known such a build up of congestion in all their time at the station and in the strongest possible terms would like their objections to this scheme noted on the above mentions points."

They may not be able to pull data together but like the Ambulance service they trust and freely share the opinions of their guys on the ground. Oh, and the Fire Brigade did formally object based on the above.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Let's summarise what we had:

1.) An Ambulance Service Team Leader, responsible for one of three entire shifts, represented the ambulance service and spend his 5 minutes at the meeting lambasting the LTN He gave information fed back from the Oval Service as a whole. Congestion, traffic, delays, barriers. He did this in a room full of residents, business owners and - importantly - local press. He knew he was a spokesman for Oval Ambulance Service. He introduced himself as such - I was one of the few hundred in the room.

In addition he said it was difficult for them to quantify exact measurements because they would need a dedicated team to analyse the routes, typical response times and other factors. The Fire Brigade (not present at the meeting) said similar - gridlock, not enough time to measure (the 8 week period does seem pretty important BUT they all said despite the measurement difficulties they were confident giving such feedback.)

2.) Figures from the Ambulance Service in which they say delays of 1-2 minutes were seen which is an average increase of up to 30% on an emergency call out times.

Just because they did not formally object does not make the impact evidence and their statements any less relevant

Why are you ignoring this?

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.

 

[sleaterkinney]

People are so attached to their cars. it's ridiculous.

 

[Jeanette Moo]

Why are you ignoring this?

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.

Why are you ignoring that when they did give information about journey times they estimated up to a 30% increase in emergency response times based on the London average. Yes, the did not formally complain but they DID give stats.

The fire brigade didn't give stats but DID formally complain. The formally complaining bit is a 'formality' it seems

 

[sleaterkinney]

Why are you ignoring that when they did give information about journey times they estimated up to a 30% increase in emergency response times based on the London average. Yes, the did not formally complain but they DID give stats.

The fire brigade didn't give stats but DID formally complain. The formally complaining bit is a 'formality' it seems

Because it was too early to get reliable measurements, as we have been saying for the past few pages and as they said in their statement.

There could have been a 30% increase, but we'll never know as the scheme did not have enough time.

 

[Jeanette Moo]

People are so attached to their cars. it's ridiculous.

Is this aimed at me?

I'm a legal courier. A bicycle courier, I get legal documents which much be physically signed and delivered to their destination. It might be a court, it might be another solicitor. I've done it for 10 years and I may deliver papers between two solicitors within Lambeth or Isleworth County Court to Stratford.

I've lived through the traffic and misery caused by one LTN, now to have loads popping up?! Take it from someone has no love for cars and, to my own guilt, a bit of hate for pedestrians these schemes bring no joy to cyclists who have experienced them.

 

[Jeanette Moo]

Because it was too early to get reliable measurements, as we have been saying for the past few pages and as they said in their statement.

There could have been a 30% increase, but we'll never know as the scheme did not have enough time.

Well, they made a call on email which they knew they could be held accountable to under the FOI act. That's a big thing - this is why the email trails are so non-committal and coy. But..they gave a figure.

 

[teuchter]

Because it was too early to get reliable measurements, as we have been saying for the past few pages and as they said in their statement.

There could have been a 30% increase, but we'll never know as the scheme did not have enough time.

Same from the police - not enough info. They note the ongoing traffic light signal changes (unrelated to teh LTN) and specifically state that they think the scheme is stil in its "transitional period".

Thank you for the meeting on Tuesday 3rd November and appraising us with the current position regarding this experimental scheme.
Firstly we support any scheme which reduces or has a likelihood to reduce casualties.
We also have to take into consideration traffic flows, congestion and the effects of displaced traffic. There is also the compounded traffic problems created by the local signal modernisation programme.

As this review is being conducted within such a short time following implementation, there has not been an opportunity to evaluate any impacts being positive or negative. I further believe we are still going through the transitional period.
The short review time has had the added effect of your surveys relating to speed and class not being available.

As a consequence I am unable to offer a positive or negative comment on the this scheme, should the scheme be continued and your data made available, I would be in better position to comment.
I must reiterate that 'we at present remain neutral with opinion and support' resulting from the limited data and short time period since introduction, thereby preventing any measurable analysis.

 

[teuchter]

I've lived through the traffic and misery caused by one LTN,

You've lived through the misery caused by the very initial period of a badly implemented LTN which was abandoned long before anyone could expect that traffic to have settled into new patterns.

 

[Jeanette Moo]

You've lived through the misery caused by the very initial period of a badly implemented LTN which was abandoned long before anyone could expect that traffic to have settled into new patterns.

Lived through almost a year of a LTN in my neighborhood where traffic was misery, I was spending all day filtering through it and the traffic impact was felt right up until some time in 2016 when the final roads were opened. Looking at Waltham it didn't seem to work out either, net 1% less car use. I now understand why so few councils do write-ups about these schemes.

Based on what others say I agree - LTNs don't reduce traffic, they create bubbles where there are no cars and the traffic finds other routes...which inevitably clog up.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Is this aimed at me?

I'm a legal courier. A bicycle courier, I get legal documents which much be physically signed and delivered to their destination. It might be a court, it might be another solicitor. I've done it for 10 years and I may deliver papers between two solicitors within Lambeth or Isleworth County Court to Stratford.

I've lived through the traffic and misery caused by one LTN, now to have loads popping up?! Take it from someone has no love for cars and, to my own guilt, a bit of hate for pedestrians these schemes bring no joy to cyclists who have experienced them.

You are literally the only bike courier I've come across that's complained about filtering through traffic. I cycle myself and I do it all the time, it's part of cycling in London. There has been a massive increase in cycling due to the LTNs.

 

[teuchter]

Lived through almost a year of a LTN in my neighborhood where traffic was misery,

Are we still talking about the LJ experiment?

It was introduced at the end of August 2015, and was abandoned by the end of November. That's 3 months, not "almost a year".

 

[Jeanette Moo]

You are literally the only bike courier I've come across that's complained about filtering through traffic. I cycle myself and I do it all the time, it's part of cycling in London. There has been a massive increase in cycling due to the LTNs.

Part of cycling is London is traffic. Filtering stationary traffic is something I hate - especially when it's been caused by a system to reduce traffic which actually doesn't.

 

[Jeanette Moo]

Are we still talking about the LJ experiment?

It was introduced at the end of August 2015, and was abandoned by the end of November. That's 3 months, not "almost a year".

Incorrect.

Some roads were opened in November. All roads were finally opened around June 2016.

 

[Aristocrat]

I've lived through the traffic and misery caused by one LTN, now to have loads popping up?! Take it from someone has no love for cars and, to my own guilt, a bit of hate for pedestrians these schemes bring no joy to cyclists who have experienced them.

Apart from this cyclist. Oh - and my partner - who wasn't prepared to cycle beyond the neighbourhood before April. And several people on my street who have been inspired to get on bikes in London for the first time.

 

[teuchter]

Incorrect.

Some roads were opened in November. All roads were finally opened around June 2016.

Which ones stayed closed until June? I thought it was just a few minor ones (like Padfield Rd) that were not the controversial ones.

 

[Jeanette Moo]

Which ones stayed closed until June? I thought it was just a few minor ones (like Padfield Rd) that were not the controversial ones.

Padfield and my street, Calais.

 

[Jeanette Moo]

Apart from this cyclist. Oh - and my partner - who wasn't prepared to cycle beyond the neighbourhood before April. And several people on my street who have been inspired to get on bikes in London for the first time.

Wait for the traffic. I loved the idea of the LTN. Next thing I'm attending community things against them.

 

[teuchter]

Padfield and my street, Calais.

What was the misery caused while just those two streets were closed? Are you saying that they by themselves caused congestion that affected you as a cyclist?

 

[sleaterkinney]

Wait for the traffic.

Then wait until then scheme has time to bed in.

 

[Aristocrat]

Wait for the traffic. I loved the idea of the LTN. Next thing I'm attending community things against them.

I am waiting. Traffic levels are back to where they were pre-lockdown, yet cycling in the LTN is much more pleasant than it was this time last year and on the roads around the edge of the LTN it's still much quieter than usual. Traffic levels

 

[Jeanette Moo]

What was the misery caused while just those two streets were closed? Are you saying that they by themselves caused congestion that affected you as a cyclist?

Yes and affected me as a resident. The traffic built up at both ends of the road and had a knock on effect for some distance. Just like how an an LTN in Croydon is now affecting Bromley so much one is thinking of taking legal action against the other.

Then factor in the little personal things which you don't realise until these are in place . No visitors even with permits, if you want a taxi you have to meet them at the end of the road. Amazon deliveries would get to you but if you had a worse company like hermes or a.n.other you could bet they would skip your delivery and let the next days driver do it because they didn't want to park up another street and walk it.

 

[editor]

Petition hits a thousand signatures

Petition calls for the immediate removal of Railton Road LTN traffic restrictions in Brixton

Lambeth’s Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) scheme continues to be a divisive issue, with a new petition being launched demanding the immediate removal of the traffic restrictions in Railton Road.

www.brixtonbuzz.com

 

[Manter]

From the London Fire Brigade appendix comments:

" In the opinion of some of my longer serving officers at Brixton they have never known such a build up of congestion in all their time at the station and in the strongest possible terms would like their objections to this scheme noted on the above mentions points."

They may not be able to pull data together but like the Ambulance service they trust and freely share the opinions of their guys on the ground. Oh, and the Fire Brigade did formally object based on the above.

Emergency services can use the LTNs as they like- use them as shortcuts etc- so this suggest a misunderstanding