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

[Jeanette Moo]

As I see it, the parcel IS delivered, but by choice the last 1/2 mile is on foot (my own!). More places for collection would spring up to meet demand and people would be collecting at all different times of day/evening to spread the load. Small shops are keen on this service as people who collect a delivery from them will often make a purchase as well - so potentially good for local shops.

In London I don't think the delivery vans have removed many cars - most people would have gone on foot/bus/tube to purchase what they now buy online.

Sounds like a an inane solution to a problem that doesnt exist

These services have increased my car use by far.

 

[Ol Nick]

Sounds like a an inane solution to a problem that doesnt exist

These services have increased my car use by far.

You need Republican Mail

 

[sparkybird]

Sounds like a an inane solution to a problem that doesnt exist

These services have increased my car use by far.

Sorry I don't understand.
Are you saying that delivery services have increased your car use? If so, how?

 

[Gramsci]

Lambeth were cutting back services before the pandemic because of cuts and here these selfish f**ks are engaging them in a costly legal action because they can't drive down a road or spend 10 extra minutes in traffic.

In a democracy that is their right.

This sounds like the mirror image of tories complaining about campaigning members of the legal profession holding the government to account over issues like immigration cases/ human rights.

We live in a democracy where the right of ordinary citizens to hold the State /local state to account should be defended. Even if its an issue one does not agree with.

The argument that its selfish should not come into it.

 

[Gramsci]

Blocked-off roads: Lambeth council should debate Low Traffic Neighbourhoods as emergency motion at next meeting – “The chaos and damage being caused across the borough is profound and unsustainable” says councillor thecked-off-roads-lambeth-council-should-debate-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-as-emergency-motion-at-next-meeting-the-chaos-and-damage-being-caused-across-the-borough-is-profound-and-unsustainable/

This article includes email sent fby the sole Tory Clrr Briggs to Chief Executive requesting that residents be given oppurtunity to put their case to Full Council for debate in this publlic meeting.

Which is fair enough imo.

This I agree with :

Where these changes are wanted, or required to solve a particular problem, they should be allowed, but only as part of a proper consultation. The consultation process is itself under scrutiny after the skewed consultations on demolishing people’s homes and the Loughborough Junction fiasco. We must draw a line in the sand and start to do better.

Unfortunately later he goes off on one.

Accusing this Labour run Council of:

Our borough has been deliberately divided by Labour councillors supporting political extremists and factions for too long

.

This is nonsense. LTNs are being implemented in Lambeth by the right of the Labour party. I dont know what factions he is referring to.

But as he is the only Cllr in the One party state of Lambeth that is giving some residents a voice agree with some of what he is saying.

I also think its right it should be fully debated at Full Council meetings.

In his email he also goes on about not returning to "Year Zero" - a world without cars, that Labour and Green party supporters are patrolling the streets to support the LTNs. So this is comparing Lambeth with Pol Pot regime in Cambodia.

The slippery slope of extremism.

This is bollox. Lambeth Ruling group are middle class Guardian readers and nice middle of the ground supporters of Starmer. Common occupation of Labour Cllrs is working in some nice cuddly charity or working in PR. These people are wet liberals at best not Khmer Rouge. At worst they have little difference to centre ground Tories.

I do agree that the Labour group has divided the borough unnecessarily.. But that is because they are politcal incompetents.

They have latched onto LTNs to make out they are radical. Which they arent.

 

[Jeanette Moo]

Sorry I don't understand.
Are you saying that delivery services have increased your car use? If so, how?

Sorry, decreased.

 

[Brian Taylor]

I've seen it said that the biggest cause of congestion in London is because of the huge extra numbers of both Ubers and of online delivery vans

Delivery vans and apps like Uber 'fuel rise in pollution in London' so I'm not sure online shopping is helping either traffic or our town centres

I think the point of central distrubution centres is to allow the 'last mile delivery' i.e. from big van to people's houses, can be more efficiently done by smaller electric vans, by electric cargo bikes and so on: Parcel groups seek to deliver greener ‘last mile’ processes

Waltham Forest council have started to trial efforts in this area and it would be great to see Lambeth follow suit at some point:

ZED – Zero Emission Deliveries - Enjoy Waltham Forest

In 2016, Waltham Forest Council was successful in securing funding from the Mayor’s Air Quality Fund to set up a zero emission delivery scheme in the borough, using cargo bikes and electric vehicles. Following a successful pilot ‘Christmas Courier’ which saw over 1,000 parcels delivered to local...

enjoywalthamforest.co.uk

An interesting article from The Guardian earlier this year How London got rid of private cars – and grew more congested than ever
The title is self explanatory, may be food for thought for the "Traffic Evaporation" theorists.

 

[teuchter]

That article - and the one posted on the last page - are both quite specifically about central London (essentially the congestion charge area). The problems that exist there are not the same as in primarily residential areas, which is mainly where the LTNs are being introduced.

As I understand it, Uber and delivery vans are a major problem in central London, but I'm not sure to what extent this applies in Z2 and 3 - I think it might be a bit of a red herring. As the article says, there are now very few private cars in central London. If you look at the mix of traffic somewhere like Brixton, there's a much higher proportion of private cars (as far as I can see). I'd like to understand this a bit better though.

 

[Winot]

An interesting article from The Guardian earlier this year How London got rid of private cars – and grew more congested than ever
The title is self explanatory, may be food for thought for the "Traffic Evaporation" theorists.

It’s a good article, but as teuchter says it’s about central London. It’ll be interesting to see the effect of COVID on Ubers and deliveries now that huge numbers of people are WFH.

Incidentally it’s madness imo that responsibility for transport is split between 32 boroughs and TfL. Give it all to TfL I say.

 

[technical]

It’s a good article, but as teuchter says it’s about central London. It’ll be interesting to see the effect of COVID on Ubers and deliveries now that huge numbers of people are WFH.

Incidentally it’s madness imo that responsibility for transport is split between 32 boroughs and TfL. Give it all to TfL I say.

couldnt agree more with your suggestion re TfL - but the idea of this govt handing over more responsibility to Sadiq seems unlikely to say the least

 

[Brian Taylor]

That article - and the one posted on the last page - are both quite specifically about central London (essentially the congestion charge area). The problems that exist there are not the same as in primarily residential areas, which is mainly where the LTNs are being introduced.

As I understand it, Uber and delivery vans are a major problem in central London, but I'm not sure to what extent this applies in Z2 and 3 - I think it might be a bit of a red herring. As the article says, there are now very few private cars in central London. If you look at the mix of traffic somewhere like Brixton, there's a much higher proportion of private cars (as far as I can see). I'd like to understand this a bit better though.

I know this is selective quoting, but

Across Greater London – where roughly one in two people own or use a car – private car trips make up only 37% of journeys, compared with 50% in 2003, according to Christina Calderato, the head of transport strategy and planning at Transport for London. “The key context is that the population is growing. London has grown by almost a million people in the past 10 years. All those people, even if they’re not travelling by car, still have to have their homes serviced – and receive deliveries.”

The fastest multiplying element of traffic everywhere is the light commercial vehicle – better known as the delivery van. Van journeys have shot up by 25% in the past decade in Britain, as online shopping has fuelled what Travers ( Prof Tony Travers, the director of LSE London )calls “the wild west of deliveries”

The main focus of the article is Central London, but the overall trends extend way beyond there. The studies being referred to in support of "evaporation" mainly quote data from 20+ years ago, long before the reduction in private car usage or the ubiquity of Sat Navs or the growth in home deliveries.
The composition of traffic is an important factor, persuading or forcing someone to think twice about jumping in a car to nip up to the CO-OP for a carton of milk is a lot easier than persuading a delivery van off the road.

Anyways, as i said before, food for thought.

 

[Winot]

couldnt agree more with your suggestion re TfL - but the idea of this govt handing over more responsibility to Sadiq seems unlikely to say the least

Oh absolutely - they are doing their best to mount a central government takeover - and they hate Sadiq.

 

[teuchter]

The studies being referred to in support of "evaporation" mainly quote data from 20+ years ago, long before the reduction in private car usage or the ubiquity of Sat Navs or the growth in home deliveries.

This is what everyone anti-LTN seems to like to say. But there are much more recent examples.

Hammersmith Bridge from 2019: Changes in traffic flow | Hammersmith Bridge closure 2019-20

There's the Walthamstow example, where the anti-LTN people keep quoting a figure of only 1% drop in car use, but that figure relates to journeys undertaken by residents, not car journeys observed through the area, which did reduce overall.

There's the Ghent example which I've linked to repeatedly in this thread.


Before getting into discussing the plausibility that delivery vans might be immune to the evaporation effect, let's get rid the idea that there are no decent examples of the evaporation effect being observed within the last 20 years.

Then we need to know what proportion of the traffic in residential areas (not central London) is made up of delivery vans. If it's a large proportion, then the question of whether they might be immune to the effect is worth looking at.

If in fact they are not a large proportion, then perhaps it's not.

 

[Rushy]

There's the Walthamstow example, where the anti-LTN people keep quoting a figure of only 1% drop in car use, but that figure relates to journeys undertaken by residents, not car journeys observed through the area, which did reduce overall.

I'd say this is another good bit of evidence that allowing local residents through gates in their immediate areas would be much more effective and efficient.

I questioned earlier whether LTNs were any more than a tolerable nuisance to the majority of journeys beginning and ending in the LTNs themselves (journeys by residents). The 1% reduction figure from Walthamstow seems to suggest that this is true - LTNs do not dissuade any more than a tiny minority of drivers who start or end their journey at their home within the LTN. But the number of journeys does not reflect the length and complexity of the remaining 99% of journeys. I gave an example of a the end of a common journey of mine which had changed from 40s on my home road past the front door of my home to 10 minutes (and as much as 20 minutes) immediately past the back door. An option to avoid this congestion is to rat run through other open residential streets within a neighbouring LTN. This is more or less unavoidable for any vehicle journey beginning or ending in my part of the LTN.

Happy to be proven wrong but I don't believe any LTNs can have actually shortened any journey starting or ending locally. So these more complex journeys are not balanced out. After allowing for the 1% reduction in the number of resident journeys (as we are told we can expect from the Walthamstow experiment) , every single one of the remaining 99% of local resident journeys are either the same or longer. Possibly much longer. And most likely in someone else's street. (3 x longer through 4 neigbouring residential streets, as well as main roads, in the example above).

 

[sparkybird]

Sorry, decreased.

Ah, thanks, understand now!
I reckon in my case (in London only), home deliveries have not impacted on how much I use my car.
Previously if I was going to by a book/frying pan/new coat etc I would have walked, or got the bus or tube to a shop to buy it. The only area where I might have driven before and now don't would be to do a big supermarket shop - maybe 3 times a year.

 

[Brian Taylor]

This is what everyone anti-LTN seems to like to say. But there are much more recent examples.

Hammersmith Bridge from 2019: Changes in traffic flow | Hammersmith Bridge closure 2019-20

There's the Walthamstow example, where the anti-LTN people keep quoting a figure of only 1% drop in car use, but that figure relates to journeys undertaken by residents, not car journeys observed through the area, which did reduce overall.

There's the Ghent example which I've linked to repeatedly in this thread.


Before getting into discussing the plausibility that delivery vans might be immune to the evaporation effect, let's get rid the idea that there are no decent examples of the evaporation effect being observed within the last 20 years.

Then we need to know what proportion of the traffic in residential areas (not central London) is made up of delivery vans. If it's a large proportion, then the question of whether they might be immune to the effect is worth looking at.

If in fact they are not a large proportion, then perhaps it's not.

Perhaps the reason so many point out that the data is 20+ years old is that those studies are the ones that people keep offering as examples, and it is.

I agree that it's unfair to compare Central London with Brixton, that's why I selected a quote referring to the whole of Greater London. It's equally wrong to compare Brixton with Walthamstow or Ghent, a leafy suburb of NE London and a charming small city in Belgian with lovely cobbled lanes and squares.
As for the Hammersmith Bridge closure, I don't really know what to make of that site you linked to. It be appears to the work of an enthusiastic amateur, maybe he is an expert and it is all accurate and properly analysed.

Here's an excerpt from TFLs more recent document on the on-going efforts to repair said bridge

http://content.tfl.gov.uk/hammersmith-bridge-faqs-april-2020.pdf

Hammersmith Bridge – FAQs April 2020

How many people currently use the bridge?
A temporary pedestrian and cycle bridge is required to ensure access is maintained for the 16,000 people currently crossing the river on foot or by bike every day and would simplify and speed-up the repairs of the main bridge. Hammersmith Bridge is a strategically significant bridge that, before it was restricted to pedestrians and cyclists in April 2019, carried 22,000 vehicles a day and 24,000 bus passengers. Its closure to vehicles has caused significant congestion in the local area and on other Thames bridges, as well as disruption to those using public transport. It is essential it is brought back into full use as soon as possible.

Anyways, I think we both agree that maybe Lambeth need to do some work getting updated data on the composition of the traffic clogging up Coldharbour Lane and what it's likely to be in the future.

 

[co-op]

I know this is selective quoting, but

Across Greater London – where roughly one in two people own or use a car – private car trips make up only 37% of journeys, compared with 50% in 2003, according to Christina Calderato, the head of transport strategy and planning at Transport for London. “The key context is that the population is growing. London has grown by almost a million people in the past 10 years. All those people, even if they’re not travelling by car, still have to have their homes serviced – and receive deliveries.”

The fastest multiplying element of traffic everywhere is the light commercial vehicle – better known as the delivery van. Van journeys have shot up by 25% in the past decade in Britain, as online shopping has fuelled what Travers ( Prof Tony Travers, the director of LSE London )calls “the wild west of deliveries”

The main focus of the article is Central London, but the overall trends extend way beyond there. The studies being referred to in support of "evaporation" mainly quote data from 20+ years ago, long before the reduction in private car usage or the ubiquity of Sat Navs or the growth in home deliveries.
The composition of traffic is an important factor, persuading or forcing someone to think twice about jumping in a car to nip up to the CO-OP for a carton of milk is a lot easier than persuading a delivery van off the road.

Anyways, as i said before, food for thought.

I haven't read the report yet but in your quoted sections, it's just about the relative size of different user-groups and the fact that different user-groups have responded differently to congestion doesn't mean that the "evaporation" theory is wrong. It could easily be that part of the reason for the decline in private car use as a proportion of the whole is that it has been squeezed out by increasing commercial traffic - i.e. it has evaporated as a result of the increased congestion caused by everyone else. The fact that different groups have different degrees of tolerance for congestion is not surprising - people being paid to drive cannot "evaporate" and if they increase then others, who do have a choice, will evaporate instead.

It's analogous to the economists concept of elasticity of demand - for some people 10 extra minutes of frustration and delay will tip the scales against the car, for others it will need to be 30 minutes etc. I wonder if one of the reasons why LTNs are getting such a bizarre and furious over-reaction from the driver-brigade is because we are getting down to the real hardcore, the people for whom any journey is a car journey and who are psychologically or emotionally unable to consider alternatives without having some kind of personal crisis.

I am sure that if you asked all those people who used to drive over Hammersmith Bridge whether they "needed" to do so the overwhelming majority would have said yes - yet here we are, the bridge is closed and whereas 25,000 people a day used to cross it, only 15,500 extra crossings are recorded on neighbouring bridges (going as far west as Kew and as far east as Battersea) - so 9,500 journeys turned out to be unnecessary if the alternative involved extra hassle and time. In the jargon, the 9.5k journeys were demand-elastic, the 15.5 were inelastic. That's about 40% of "necessary" journeys that actually were dependent on convenience.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Perhaps the reason so many point out that the data is 20+ years old is that those studies are the ones that people keep offering as examples, and it is.

I agree that it's unfair to compare Central London with Brixton, that's why I selected a quote referring to the whole of Greater London. It's equally wrong to compare Brixton with Walthamstow or Ghent, a leafy suburb of NE London and a charming small city in Belgian with lovely cobbled lanes and squares.

How traffic behaves has not changed that much in 20 years, and the whole reason that report has a range of examples is so that you can see an overall trend. But if you disagree - post up the report that disproves it.

The thinking behind low traffic neighbourhoods is well established, we've had modal filters in Brixton for a long while.

 

[teuchter]

I'd say this is another good bit of evidence that allowing local residents through gates in their immediate areas would be much more effective and efficient.

I questioned earlier whether LTNs were any more than a tolerable nuisance to the majority of journeys beginning and ending in the LTNs themselves (journeys by residents). The 1% reduction figure from Walthamstow seems to suggest that this is true - LTNs do not dissuade any more than a tiny minority of drivers who start or end their journey at their home within the LTN. But the number of journeys does not reflect the length and complexity of the remaining 99% of journeys. I gave an example of a the end of a common journey of mine which had changed from 40s on my home road past the front door of my home to 10 minutes (and as much as 20 minutes) immediately past the back door. An option to avoid this congestion is to rat run through other open residential streets within a neighbouring LTN. This is more or less unavoidable for any vehicle journey beginning or ending in my part of the LTN.

Happy to be proven wrong but I don't believe any LTNs can have actually shortened any journey starting or ending locally. So these more complex journeys are not balanced out. After allowing for the 1% reduction in the number of resident journeys (as we are told we can expect from the Walthamstow experiment) , every single one of the remaining 99% of local resident journeys are either the same or longer. Possibly much longer. And most likely in someone else's street. (3 x longer through 4 neigbouring residential streets, as well as main roads, in the example above).

I can't really disagree with the logic of that, in principle. Assuming the figures for Walthamstow are reliable. The figures for Walthamstow Forest suggest that it was successful in cutting the amount of traffic generally, and that some level of evaporation was seen, but it was not successful in reducing the amount of journeys residents made by car (although, I think it did increase the number of journeys they made by foot/bike?).

So I'd have to remain open minded about that aspect of the schemes.

I'd want to check out other examples though. I thought that in Ghent they had observed a modal shift amongst residents, but I can't find that bit of info.

In an ideal world I'd want to revisit the figures for Walthamstow 2 and 3 years after too, because some changes in behaviour might not show within only a year - but unfortunately they haven't done this. Something else to note about the Walthmstow figures: I've just checked, I don't think it's actually a measured "number of car journeys". It's based (as far as I can make out) on answers to a survey question, to people for whom the car is their main mode of transport, whether their "main mode of travel had changed". So, I'd say that there should be a bit of caution about what can be concluded from this, exactly.





The other thing you'd have to be careful about: assuming we take the it as fact that car usage by residents hasn't really changed - this is in the context of the scheme as it is. The residents would have seen certain journeys become a bit longer, but may also have seen reduced congestion on the streets they use within the zone (thanks to through-traffic having been reduced). And the net effect is that their car usage doesn't change that much.

But what if they are given the benefit of the reduced congestion on local streets, plus the freedom to get places by the shortest route? Isn't it plausible that you could then see a situation where instead of car use by residents remaining static, it would increase?

 

[thebackrow]

Perhaps the reason so many point out that the data is 20+ years old is that those studies are the ones that people keep offering as examples, and it is.

The nature of research is that once something is well proven no-one is going to fund further research to evidence the same thing. Alternatively you could say that we have a good historic base of evidence to demonstrate traffic evaporation is a real phenomenon, and an even wider base to demonstrate that induced traffic is real. So where is the research to disprove that?

 

[sleaterkinney]

An interesting article from The Guardian earlier this year How London got rid of private cars – and grew more congested than ever
The title is self explanatory, may be food for thought for the "Traffic Evaporation" theorists.

In a way though, it’s part of the argument for LTNs, if London was congested before and now people are wary of public transport - they can’t just hop in a car, it will make the existing congestion even worse - so there have to be alternatives.

 

[Gramsci]

On my email to Council , using the email address for info on LTNs, Ive had no acknowledgement or reply. Normally with Council one gets automatic reply with how long it will take to answer.

This is not looking good. I will give it a few more days. Thought Id test to see if this ongoing consultation process actually works.

My email to the LTN Council email address.

I see for Oval LTN a ETO Experimental Traffic Order is being used.

Can you please tell me if ETO are being used for each new LTN in Lambeth?

I would also like to know why an ETO is being used.

The other two Traffic orders I have found. One for Oval and one for the whole borough are related to the pandemic. Which is fair enough. They are time limited.

An ETO for Oval does not mention the pandemic.

Can you explain to me what is going on? And why is Lambeth using ETO for Oval LTN. This is unrelated to the pandemic and would lead to permanent LTN.

I would like to be proved wrong next week.

To add I attached copies of the traffic orders Id found to the email. To show I knew what I was talking about.

 

[thebackrow]

On my email to Council , using the email address for info on LTNs, Ive had no acknowledgement or reply. Normally with Council one gets automatic reply with how long it will take to answer.

This is not looking good. I will give it a few more days. Thought Id test to see if this ongoing consultation process actually works.
My email to the LTN Council email address.
I would like to be proved worng next week.
To add I attached copies of the traffic orders Id found to the email. To show I knew what I was talking about.

ETOs seem to be how these schemes are being implemented across the UK and is in the government statutory guidance below which might answer your confusion about the connection to the Covid crisis.

From Ealing to Lambeth, protests continue against London Low Traffic Neighbourhoods - OnLondon

A large demo in suburban Ealing was among the eye-catching sights of Saturday’s co-ordinated protests against Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTN) in several boroughs. Campaigners are frustrated at the lack of consultation before the start of trials and say the changes are causing more congestion...

www.google.co.uk

the statutory guidance instructed 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.”

[Withdrawn] Traffic Management Act 2004: network management to support active travel

www.gov.uk

Pretty sure you’ve been told this before in the long thread.

 

[Gramsci]

ETOs seem to be how these schemes are being implemented across the UK and is in the government statutory guidance below which might answer your confusion about the connection to the Covid crisis.

From Ealing to Lambeth, protests continue against London Low Traffic Neighbourhoods - OnLondon

A large demo in suburban Ealing was among the eye-catching sights of Saturday’s co-ordinated protests against Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTN) in several boroughs. Campaigners are frustrated at the lack of consultation before the start of trials and say the changes are causing more congestion...

www.google.co.uk

the statutory guidance instructed 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.”

[Withdrawn] Traffic Management Act 2004: network management to support active travel

www.gov.uk

Pretty sure you’ve been told this before in the long thread.

I sent an email to Council to find out if that is what they are doing here.

The Council should be putting this info on its websites.

ETO can be opposed but I cant find anywhere Ive looked where Lambeth have explained that to people.

So as you appear to know about this more than me can you post up links where I can find the ETOs for the other LTNs apart from Oval which I have found?

If this is Tory government policy how is that Cllr Briggs is objecting to what the Council is doing?

If this is "statutory" how is it Wandsworth Council decided to end the schemes?

Does this not suggest that Councils are not obliged to follow all that the government is saying on this issue?

That under local democracy they can decide how to implement schemes? Taking into account government advice and deciding what is best for their area.

My point was that the Oval ETO does not mention the pandemic as reason to implement it. Unlike the other temporary orders I found.

 

[thebackrow]

I sent an email to Council to find out if that is what they are doing here.

The Council should be putting this info on its websites.

ETO can be opposed but I cant find anywhere Ive looked where Lambeth have explained that to people.

So as you appear to know about this more than me can you post up links where I can find the ETOs for the other LTNs apart from Oval which I have found?

If this is Tory government policy how is that Cllr Briggs is objecting to what the Council is doing?

If this is "statutory" how is it Wandsworth Council decided to end the schemes?

Does this not suggest that Councils are not obliged to follow all that the government is saying on this issue?

That under local democracy they can decide how to implement schemes? Taking into account government advice and deciding what is best for their area.

My point was that the Oval ETO does not mention the pandemic as reason to implement it. Unlike the other temporary orders I found.

Which bit of this page do you think is unclear?

About Oval Triangle Low Traffic Neighbourhood

A space to learn about and feed into the Oval Low Traffic Neighbourhood.

ovalltnproposals.commonplace.is

Transport in a time of COVID

The on-going pandemic and the need to socially distance will mean reduced capacity on London's public transport network for some time to come. If car journeys greatly increase then our roads could grind to a halt. We need to keep roads free for truly essential journeys while also helping the majority of households in our borough, who don't have access to a car, safely make trips that they would previously have made by public transport.

The Government recognise that there is an urgent need to rapidly accommodate unprecedented demand for walking and cycling and have made £250 million available for swift, emergency interventions to make cycling and walking safer. The Mayor of London has produced a plan called Streetspace for London and is working with us and other boroughs, with a focus on three key areas:

• Quickly building a strategic cycling network, using temporary materials and including new routes, to help reduce crowding on the Tube and trains and on busy bus routes
• Changing town centres so local journeys can be safely walked and cycled where possible, for example with wider pavements on high streets to give space for queues outside shops as people safely walk past while socially distancing
• Reducing traffic on residential streets, creating low-traffic neighbourhoods right across London so more people can walk and cycle as part of their daily routine

Oval Triangle low traffic neighbourhood - temporary scheme

Part of Lambeth's response to the current pandemic will be to create a low traffic neighbourhood in the Oval Triangle area. This is a project that the council had been considering before the pandemic but we have had to adapt to the changing circumstances. The low traffic neighbourhood will now be delivered in two stages:

• Immediately creating a low traffic neighbourhood with a temporary scheme
• Developing a permanent scheme, which will be informed by engaging with stakeholders and learning lessons from the temporary scheme

 

[Gramsci]

Which bit of this page do you think is unclear?

About Oval Triangle Low Traffic Neighbourhood

A space to learn about and feed into the Oval Low Traffic Neighbourhood.

ovalltnproposals.commonplace.is

Transport in a time of COVID

The on-going pandemic and the need to socially distance will mean reduced capacity on London's public transport network for some time to come. If car journeys greatly increase then our roads could grind to a halt. We need to keep roads free for truly essential journeys while also helping the majority of households in our borough, who don't have access to a car, safely make trips that they would previously have made by public transport.

The Government recognise that there is an urgent need to rapidly accommodate unprecedented demand for walking and cycling and have made £250 million available for swift, emergency interventions to make cycling and walking safer. The Mayor of London has produced a plan called Streetspace for London and is working with us and other boroughs, with a focus on three key areas:

• Quickly building a strategic cycling network, using temporary materials and including new routes, to help reduce crowding on the Tube and trains and on busy bus routes
• Changing town centres so local journeys can be safely walked and cycled where possible, for example with wider pavements on high streets to give space for queues outside shops as people safely walk past while socially distancing
• Reducing traffic on residential streets, creating low-traffic neighbourhoods right across London so more people can walk and cycle as part of their daily routine

Oval Triangle low traffic neighbourhood - temporary scheme

Part of Lambeth's response to the current pandemic will be to create a low traffic neighbourhood in the Oval Triangle area. This is a project that the council had been considering before the pandemic but we have had to adapt to the changing circumstances. The low traffic neighbourhood will now be delivered in two stages:

• Immediately creating a low traffic neighbourhood with a temporary scheme
• Developing a permanent scheme, which will be informed by engaging with stakeholders and learning lessons from the temporary scheme

Yes Ive seen this.

The actual Traffic orders I havent found there.

When I found the Oval LTN ETO it had no mention of the pandemic as reason.

There are also separate traffic orders which are temporary for the pandemic.

So how is it Wandsworth have managed to scrap LTNs? I have not heard them getting stick from the government for this. Or am I wrong on that? They are still doing other measures but the LTNs they have scrapped.

 

[Gramsci]

Which bit of this page do you think is unclear?

About Oval Triangle Low Traffic Neighbourhood

A space to learn about and feed into the Oval Low Traffic Neighbourhood.

ovalltnproposals.commonplace.is

Transport in a time of COVID

The on-going pandemic and the need to socially distance will mean reduced capacity on London's public transport network for some time to come. If car journeys greatly increase then our roads could grind to a halt. We need to keep roads free for truly essential journeys while also helping the majority of households in our borough, who don't have access to a car, safely make trips that they would previously have made by public transport.

The Government recognise that there is an urgent need to rapidly accommodate unprecedented demand for walking and cycling and have made £250 million available for swift, emergency interventions to make cycling and walking safer. The Mayor of London has produced a plan called Streetspace for London and is working with us and other boroughs, with a focus on three key areas:

• Quickly building a strategic cycling network, using temporary materials and including new routes, to help reduce crowding on the Tube and trains and on busy bus routes
• Changing town centres so local journeys can be safely walked and cycled where possible, for example with wider pavements on high streets to give space for queues outside shops as people safely walk past while socially distancing
• Reducing traffic on residential streets, creating low-traffic neighbourhoods right across London so more people can walk and cycle as part of their daily routine

Oval Triangle low traffic neighbourhood - temporary scheme

Part of Lambeth's response to the current pandemic will be to create a low traffic neighbourhood in the Oval Triangle area. This is a project that the council had been considering before the pandemic but we have had to adapt to the changing circumstances. The low traffic neighbourhood will now be delivered in two stages:

• Immediately creating a low traffic neighbourhood with a temporary scheme
• Developing a permanent scheme, which will be informed by engaging with stakeholders and learning lessons from the temporary scheme

As you appear more informed than I am on this can you direct me to links where I can find the ETOs for the other LTNs in Lambeth? If that is how the Council are doing it for the other LTNs.

 

[thebackrow]

As you appear more informed than I am on this can you direct me to links where I can find the ETOs for the other LTNs in Lambeth? If that is how the Council are doing it for the other LTNs.

No, you said you didn’t understand why ETOs were used so I googled and looked at the Govt guidance and posted it. You said Lambeth hadn’t explained why the schemes were going in or that they might become permanent so I looked at the site for oval and posted that.

traffic orders seem a pretty dry and legalistic thing that I’d guess most people would have trouble understanding. The Lambeth site for oval seems pretty clear however.

I’ve no idea where to find traffic orders but I’m not sure why they would mention covid or whether that’s in any way important when it’s quite clear from both the govt guidance and the Lambeth site why these schemes are being done.

For someone one who says they’re critically supportive this seems a lot of nit picking to try and find fault with stuff that’s in plain sight. I don’t see anything hidden here.

 

[Gramsci]

No, you said you didn’t understand why ETOs were used so I googled and looked at the Govt guidance and posted it. You said Lambeth hadn’t explained why the schemes were going in or that they might become permanent so I looked at the site for oval and posted that.

traffic orders seem a pretty dry and legalistic thing that I’d guess most people would have trouble understanding. The Lambeth site for oval seems pretty clear however.

I’ve no idea where to find traffic orders but I’m not sure why they would mention covid or whether that’s in any way important when it’s quite clear from both the govt guidance and the Lambeth site why these schemes are being done.

For someone one who says they’re critically supportive this seems a lot of nit picking to try and find fault with stuff that’s in plain sight. I don’t see anything hidden here.

Its not in plain sight.

The ETO for Oval does not mention Covid. The other two orders that Lambeth are using do.

I dont think its nitpicking to ask Lambeth about what traffic orders it is using.

As Covid is reason Lambeth are giving for fastracking these schemes without the usual consultation I would have thought its relevant.

 

[teuchter]

I'm no stranger to nitpicking but I don't really understand what it is you want, or why, Gramsci.