Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
DJWrongspeed
radio eros
Lambeth is polluted and congested. What's you solution?
Do you agree we have to move from this?
It's been worked out in loads of other European cities, why not ours?
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I cant be sure but I think even though it described as an emergency low traffic neighbourhood legally it is being introduced under an Experimental Traffic Order which is part of a consultation process. Most LTNs in London are being introduced in this way.
The text from the Hackney Commonplace is a bit clearer.
London Fields Low Traffic Neighbourhood
Give your views on our road closures/traffic filters in London Fields. The feedback period for this scheme closed on 1 August 2021.rebuildingagreenerhackney.commonplace.is
Have your say
The filters are being introduced using an experimental traffic order for a maximum period of 18 months, which means you can see how the filters work in practice before having your say.
The views of residents and businesses, including any suggested changes to how schemes operate, will be taken into account before any decision on whether or not to make the measures permanent. This process is in line with specific guidance from Transport for London, and the Department for Transport, whose guidance states that: 'authorities should monitor and evaluate any temporary measures they install, with a view to making them permanent, and embedding a long-term shift to active travel as we move from restart to recovery’.
The experimental traffic order will be advertised in the London Gazette and the Hackney Gazette on 27 August 2020.
You can have your say for up to six months after the measures have been implemented, until 21 March 2021. To have your say, please complete the survey below or email streetscene.consultations@hackney.gov.uk. You can also write to us by sending your comments to ‘Freepost Streetscene’.
It looks to me that Lambeth have made a Borough Wide Traffic order.
The Council admits that the lack of usual consultation could led to challenge of the decision of rolling out LTNs.
So if I was One Lambeth Id be looking at the legal side of this.
Im still not clear what this borough wide order is. Is it an "experimental" order?
Looking up experimental orders and they are for specific schemes. This is sweeping order covering the whole borough.
( Experimental )
Some of this could be on shaky ground. Using a borough wide order is the Council giving itself wide ranging powers to alter streets as it sees fit. They are going to have to be able to justify specific decisions if challenged. If someone/ group challenges Council on a specific LTN the Council are going to have to justify the decision making process, for a Borough Wide Traffic order as it relates to a specific LTN. Whether more engagement should have happened prior to putting in place an LTN.
Last edited:
editor
hiraethified
Turns out that 51% figure is NOT for individual Lambeth LTNs but a general figure for London. It's clear that some LTNs have more local support than others and I think it's fair to say there's been a fair bit of controversy surrounding some of the ones in Lambeth.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Experimental
I covered the permanent traffic regulation order process a couple of years back, but I always meant to return to talk a bit about the expe...
therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com
Reading this on Experimental Traffic Orders. ETA are a legal way for Councils to get around consultation. Which can get bogged down with lengthy opposition.
Put scheme in place. Then ask for comments.
In reality once the scheme is in place that is half the battle already won by the Council imo.
I did hear something about this at a local meeting. But didnt reallly believe Councils could do this ( pre pandemic) as imo it goes against local democracy. I did think Councils were obliged to consult first then put schemes in place. That is how local democracy worked I thought.
Appears not the case.
Im still not sure if Lambeth Borough Wide traffic order is an ETO
To add the blog piece is even handed. Looks like Councils have had this ability for some time. But its only recently been used for traffic filtering /cycle paths schemes.
Last edited:
DJWrongspeed
radio eros
Thanks Gramsci, i think the thread's just got too long......or it's becoming too threaded
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I cant be sure but I think even though it described as an emergency low traffic neighbourhood legally it is being introduced under an Experimental Traffic Order which is part of a consultation process. Most LTNs in London are being introduced in this way.
The text from the Hackney Commonplace is a bit clearer.
London Fields Low Traffic Neighbourhood
Give your views on our road closures/traffic filters in London Fields. The feedback period for this scheme closed on 1 August 2021.
Have your say
The filters are being introduced using an experimental traffic order for a maximum period of 18 months, which means you can see how the filters work in practice before having your say.
The views of residents and businesses, including any suggested changes to how schemes operate, will be taken into account before any decision on whether or not to make the measures permanent. This process is in line with specific guidance from Transport for London, and the Department for Transport, whose guidance states that: 'authorities should monitor and evaluate any temporary measures they install, with a view to making them permanent, and embedding a long-term shift to active travel as we move from restart to recovery’.
The experimental traffic order will be advertised in the London Gazette and the Hackney Gazette on 27 August 2020.
You can have your say for up to six months after the measures have been implemented, until 21 March 2021. To have your say, please complete the survey below or email streetscene.consultations@hackney.gov.uk. You can also write to us by sending your comments to ‘Freepost Streetscene’.
The Hackney commonplace is a model of clarity compared to Lambeth effort.
madolesance
Well-Known Member
It’s a shame it has come to this as the problems with ‘rat runners’ has come about cause the people who have created the problems live no where near these LTNs. They are just following orders from their satnavs/ Googlle maps and the like. And all the Uber vehicles who are also just being told where to go via a device.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
I've not seen any convincing alternatives posted up by anyone. They are either impractical, or too feeble to have a meaningful impact.Thanks Gramsci, i think the thread's just got too long......or it's becoming too threaded
Some people seem to think an extended ULEZ will cure congestion, for example.
I'll welcome an extension of the ULEZ because it might help a bit with air pollution. Better than nothing. Doesn't solve any of the fundamental problems though. And anyone concerned about displaced traffic ought also to worry what happens around the perimeter of the ULEZ. As an ULEZ is not a measure aimed at reducing overall traffic levels, the perimeter effects will be worse than those associated with LTNs and there is no intrinsic mechanism to see that perimeter traffic reduce in the longer term (as there is with consistent application of LTNs).
friendofdorothy
Solidarity against neoliberalism!
Sorry can't keep up with the arguments on this tread and whether or not the scheme is a good idea or not, but just want to say the change in the amount of traffic is really noticable now.
I walk down Railton road regularly to brixton and HH. The air does feel cleaner and its good to be able to walk in the road to allow other pedestrians space.
I walk down Railton road regularly to brixton and HH. The air does feel cleaner and its good to be able to walk in the road to allow other pedestrians space.
Torpid Scorpion
Basket case
Having listened to (argued with) many anti-LTN folks to try to understand the major strands of dissatisfaction (unscientific sampling I admit,) strikes me that exempting local residents from the PCNs would quiet a vast number of them. This could be easily done, with little additional investment, by the council simply using the registered keeper address (which they have statutory access to) to exempt anyone registered within several miles of the infraction. I could write the code for this myself in a morning.
This would of course not address the issues of traffic displacement but (imo) those are vastly overstated.
There is, sadly, no way to calm the segment of the anti-ltn crowd that are there for the outrage and entitlement but I think thats a small minority.
I think this would result in real confusion until people figured it out, and there should be a way to know if you are 'local enough' but it could be treated like the average speed cameras: they are rarely on and sending out tickets, they are set at a level above what they claim to be set at, but the threat is there.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
Imagine a vegan living in an LTN.
Jesterburger
Well-Known Member
I much prefer the clarity and legibility of the Hackney map vs the hand-drawn Lambeth ones
teuchter
je suis teuchter
If the technology is there, definitely do it for blue badge holders.
Do a "locals exempted" as a last resort perhaps, if it's that or nothing. You do however lose the aspect of the scheme that's supposed to be about discouraging unnecessary short journeys. How much traffic that would then add back onto Railton Rd etc I don't know. I'd be worried that it would create a situation where things are a bit better than before, but it hasn't really changed anything fundamental, people living inside the zone are better off because they get the quieter streets and no restrictions on their car use, and the benefits outside the zone would take the larger hit (because it loses some of its strength as a policy aimed at reducing the number of car journeys overall). And - the benefits for those inside the zone would be greater for car owners than they would be for non car owners.
Jesterburger
Well-Known Member
I'm a supporter and have heard these arguments frequently in my area (Tulse Hill) - and I see why they are attractive, and could work.
The big unknown for me - is I don't know what proportion of the speeding and dangerous driving in my area is residents vs non-locals - if the residents going to fast is the issue then residents' exemptions wouldn't work. I have no idea how easy it would be to trial this.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
They are doing something like this in Fulham - it will be interesting to watch what the results are, although it'll be some time before that's at all clear.
BusLanes
Pedestrian
I agree a good proportion of the anti LTNs would be happy with either of those options. Another big local group would be happy if the Council actually did real consultation/makes this up to them by actively seeking engagement and then acting on the results. Get both those groups on side and most of the local opposition would go away (if my local LTN discussion groups are anything to go by).
newbie
undisambiguated
There is absolutely no reason why critics of central/local government imposed social engineering should be expected to come up with the alternative suggestions that have been demanded frequently throughout this thread, most recently by DJWrongspeed .
However I and others have put forward ideas. When I did so, you said
There are also other proposals. I have issues with this one as I explained in a subsequent post, but let's not deny it's there or pretend that with political will much, much more far reaching policy could not have been integral to TfL/government policy.
Neither impractical nor feeble, just a hard sell, same as 20mph, CC, ULEZ, cycle lanes were hard sells, and so on. They had the advantage of being seen to target real problems and to have some element of fairness.
LTNs ought to be a much harder sell, because they aim at the wrong targets. They concentrate pollution on the already most polluted roads, which just happen to be where those who have least economic choice live and work. They increase the time, mileage and pollution for every one of the last mile Ubers or deliveries to the insiders who congratulate themselves on being car free. They make life more difficult for those with mobility impairments. They cause congestion and frustration. And they do so at a time when there is little commuting and when people are scared of public transport. All pointlessly feeble and most unlikely to produce any meaningful outcome except more deaths from asthma for little girls who live 25m from main roads.
However the naked self interest of already wealthy insiders seems to have overcome that, and no-one else seems to matter. So long as our air is cleaner, our children can frolick, our quality of life and well being improve it's all good. And as a byproduct we'll get the benefit of buying on a 'rat run' and selling on a Quiet Route. Win win. For us.
ps thanks Gramsci
technical
stripey
Massive generalisation alert! I understand your issues with the LTNs and to a degree I accept that there will be displacement - but the highlighted statement is quite frankly wild exaggeration as far as my experience is concerned. My street is in the Tulse Hill LTN - the scheme has generated a lot of discussion on WhatsApp group in terms of for, against and don't know/unclear what the effects will be, but to suggest (without evidence as far as I can see) that people that support it do so for personal gain is completely inaccurate. I support it on a trial basis to see if it makes a difference to traffic, air quality and speeding on our streets. If the benefits don't stack up at the end of the trial period (essentially a long consultation phase as I see it) against any displacement/disbenefits elsewhere) then it shouldn't go forward.
newbie
undisambiguated
Somewhere upthread we discussed whether speeding and dangerous driving were less likely the closer people are to home. Does one speed when in Wandsworth but not in Lambeth, when that side of Acre Lane but not this side, perhaps where you're not likely to be recognised? Hard to tell, but in any event I'd argue that both speeding and dangerous driving are already illegal and that should be enforced wherever they occur.
In what other areas of life would we accept restriction on lawful behaviour because some people behave illegally?
newbie
undisambiguated
sure, generalisation, I'm writing posts on a discussion board not some academic paper.
But look at what you just said... "My street is in the Tulse Hill LTN .... I support it on a trial basis to see if it makes a difference to traffic, air quality and speeding on our streets. " That's exactly my point: benefit for you as an insider will swing the deal. When the consultation takes place it will be insiders consulted, just as only insiders (and cycling campaigners?) have had any involvement in the run up to the newer LTNs.
Yet that almost certainly means the outcome is a foregone conclusion, because the benefits accrue almost exclusively to insiders and all the problems will land in someone else's lungs.
And I'm sorry to be blunt, but I simply do not believe that insider homeowners have not done the calculation that says I bought on a rat run because the equivalent places on quieter, more desirable streets were outside my budget, and when I sell I'll reap an additional capital gain because the street will be quieter. Tenants, by contrast should reckon on their rents rising as streets become more desirable, because landlords will reap their ill gotten gains both ways.
BTW, they're not your streets, they're streets for Londoners, one of which you live in temporarily. I know it's a figure of speech, but insider/outsider is central to this debate.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
As usual you state all this as if it's fact, whereas it's just opinion. Especially the bits about concentrating pollution, effects on those with mobility impairments, and increasing congestion. The available evidence on the pollution/congestion effects is patchy, and I wish it was more solid, but it doesn't support what you claim, especially when you look at things beyond the short-medium term.
So, yes, it's a hard sell if people believe unsubstantiated claims. As we are seeing.
newbie
undisambiguated
come off it. We've had various people on this thread talking about the effect of them. Insiders who say the air is cleaner, the cycling easier and so on counterbalanced by those with, or caring for those with, mobility needs complaining of extra journey time. We've heard from those who live on main roads demonstrating increased congestion, from couriers and drivers, from pedestrians and cyclists.
The available evidence all points in the same direction, benefit for some, problems for others.
As for concentrating pollution, are you seriously suggesting there's any doubt about where it is?
PM10 from London Air Quality Network » Annual Pollution Maps
We all know which are the most polluted roads. You're in favour of making them worse.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
We know which are the most polluted roads, yes.
We don't know for sure how much extra traffic the LTNs put on those roads in the short term (it seems plausible there will be an increase in places)
We don't know for sure what effect that extra traffic has on air pollution - is it directly proportional (if I remember rightly the Ghent study found that it was not)
We don't know for sure how much extra traffic the individual LTNs put on those roads in the long term (it's quite plausible that the level of traffic ends up being similar or even lower, as it's limited by the capacity of the road and drivers' tolerance of congestion)
We don't know for sure how the overall level of traffic, and consequently the level on those roads, responds to a London-wide progressive implementation of LTN type schemes (but it's quite plausible that it will reduce it).
So, no, I'm not "in favour of making the most polluted roads worse".
We don't know for sure how much extra traffic the LTNs put on those roads in the short term (it seems plausible there will be an increase in places)
We don't know for sure what effect that extra traffic has on air pollution - is it directly proportional (if I remember rightly the Ghent study found that it was not)
We don't know for sure how much extra traffic the individual LTNs put on those roads in the long term (it's quite plausible that the level of traffic ends up being similar or even lower, as it's limited by the capacity of the road and drivers' tolerance of congestion)
We don't know for sure how the overall level of traffic, and consequently the level on those roads, responds to a London-wide progressive implementation of LTN type schemes (but it's quite plausible that it will reduce it).
So, no, I'm not "in favour of making the most polluted roads worse".
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
Well, with quieter roads you could argue that this is actually encouraging short trips by residents as you're making them quicker and easier than they were before without the through traffic within the LTN.
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
Gun ownership comes to mind immediately. We used to allow guns to be owned much more widely and used under licence but because some people behaved illegally there were much stricter restrictions placed on their ownership and use, even for those (like farmers for example) who may have had completely legitimate reasons to own weapons.
Guns don't kill people rappers do,
From Bristol Zoo to B&Q,
I want to rap, I want to rhyme
Heard it in a song now I'm into gun crime,
Its a sign of the times like Prince changin his name,
Gotta have a shooter to be in the rap game,
Like Michael Ryan about to snap,
Guns don't kill people its just rap!
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
I do find this assumption that everyone just wants to sell up and leave really odd. Are you personally just waiting to leave? Don't project your own thought process onto everyone else.
Many of us have made our lives here - wanting it to be a better place to live (rather than the street we live on getting ever more rat running traffic enabled by Waze and google as it has over the last decade) isn't about an unrealisable theoretical financial gain at some point in the future, possibly for our heirs, it's about having a better environment to live in now.
Similar threads
