teuchter
je suis teuchter
Surprised you just accept the council's line on what's happened and why.
Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists
- Thread starter teuchter
- Start date
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Good for you.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Im not following the Councils line.
You said this was appeasement.
From what i read in the article the Council is not ditching traffic reduction altogether. It is altering the scheme.
In my opinion that is not appeasement.
If they had just ditched the whole thing you might have an argument.
In this case they didnt.
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
Isn't that exactly what's been done? The classification of those roads has been changed to 'no through road' with use of signage or physical closure. There are cameras to enforce against those who ignore the classification. That information is updated on the satnavs and they no longer route drivers down those roads.
Last edited:
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Some reading for you.
'Pioneering' traffic scheme to keep non-residents out of Fulham to begin in July
Some residents predict "teething problems", others say they have been "ignored"
I'm going to have to try and resist getting into all the details of this scheme but it looks like they actually did some monitoring of traffic during their experimental period. And it showed an increase on certain streets - but also a decrease on what appear to be parallel streets to the one that was closed. In other words, not as simple as traffic just increasing on the routes you'd expect to be taken instead. It doesn't seem obvious that the revised scheme is directly addressing these issues - it seems to be more a case of retaining a compromised version of the original one. So, some traffic returns to the previously closed street - but not quite as much as before. Is that the solution to the measured increase on certain other streets - just put things back to sort-of how they were before? It doesn't look to me like a very sophisticated response. It looks to me like they faced vociferous opposition and backed down on the original intention. In ote the "Mr Loophole" lawyer has also been on talk radio complaining about vigilante cyclists who film traffic offences.
newbie
undisambiguated
The scheme started in October. Last November
I don't know that area well enough to have an opinion on the roads detail, but the process seems familiar. To be fair to Lambeth the H&F online consultation seems very poor (this one is historic but look at a live one to see how it works). The experiment obviously failed yet Covid was used as cover to extend it. Now they're looking at a borough localist scheme which no doubt someone will test to see if it's even legal.
Does anyone think conditional access to borough roads based on parking permit is a good idea?
In some ways it's just an extension of the Congestion Charge, which isn't paid by those living inside it. Or of the little toll house in Dulwich collecting a few pence from each car. But in other ways it's wholly new, paying to access routes along public streets which are denied to others.
Two immediate consequences spring to mind, firstly that for affected routes most H&F car owners will be paying for an enhanced level of access which those residents with off street parking will get free, while outsiders are barred and can be penalised. That's not healthy, is it? Presumably in future the permit cost will go up because so much more is included, and residential & trade off street parking will become even more desirable.
Secondly, this scheme failed because displaced traffic clogged the through routes, caused pollution and slowed down buses (who'd have thought?). We're told it's mostly traffic from outside the borough getting to/from pinchpoints, the bridges over the river, and that the road network has not coped properly since the area was made less permeable (ie there's reduced resilience in the event of holdups). Those outsiders have shown they're not prepared (or perhaps able) to either be frustrated out of their cars or to change their route via the pinchpoints (ie the alternatives are worse). The new scheme will make it easier for locals to get about their immediate area and take some pressure off the perimeter roads. Minicabs, Uber, deliveries, Zips and trades servicing those affected will still have to use the perimeter unless the vehicle has a borough parking permit, so not all local displacement will be alleviated. Overall it seems unlikely to reduce the perimeter traffic hugely but might reduce congestion and through journey times compared with the failed scheme.
The claim that "The scheme will reduce traffic to below what it was before the experimental closure of Harwood Terrace." is pretty dubious, isn't it? Well, unless you notice that they're still a long way down anyway, so the claim is pretty meaningless.
Tom Tom
I also wonder how it will scale if it's judged successful- or even if evaluation matters. Surely all car owning H&F residents will demand the same 'Except Permit Holders ' signs for all comparable rat run/LTN etc areas with access restrictions that are currently universal. Why not? Maybe the idea will be taken up elsewhere, not only as the effects of other LTNs become apparent, but also because increasing permit charges and fining the confused is an obvious cash cow for councils and ought to pacify huge amounts of local (voter) opposition to traffic restrictions. No-one outside the borough matters, obviously, although differentially affected business outsiders might take the market distortion angle seriously.
Does this herald a time when borough residents have a wholly different set of routes available than outsiders? (with satnavs somehow knowing what's what or the chaos will be unbelievable! ) Why not replicate that across all boroughs, then gang together to amplify it, so as a Lambeth resident I can sail all the way along Shakespeare without restriction but a H&Ffer will get fined £80 and someone from Surrey £160 for doing the same journey?
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Just to clarify - are you still sticking you the point to which I originally responded? Or agreeing with mind reader Teuchter that you meant something other than what was posted? It's getting very confusing.
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
I've no idea. I think your idea was that someone would ask the satnav makers nicely and they'd stop routing drivers down backstreets and I suggested that wouldn't work because someone would just launch a competing satnav product that continued to send drivers down rat runs.
Of course even if it did work (maybe legislation to ban satnav use) all it would do is take us back to pre-sat nav days when rat runs required a bit of intuition or local knowledge and anyone who drove a route on a regular basis would still find and use them.
(Edit - though I do see your confusion - it does look like I quoted the wrong post entirely. Sorry)
Last edited:
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Actually, no, it doesn't look like it was as simple as that. I have not been able to find the actual report with results of the experiment; all I have is this comment on it
from here.
Look at the map. Bagleys Lane is not a perimeter road and it's not designated as a main through route, like New King's Road and Wandsworth Bridge road are. It looks like the rat-running traffic was displaced to another rat-running route (which is also a bus route), whilst traffic on at least some of the perimeter roads actually decreased. So, is the solution to that not to block that alternative rat run route as well? Indeed this seems to be what they have done in the implemented scheme.
However - what they have also changed in the implemented scheme is to provide this exemption for residents. Does this measure address the problems of increased traffic on alternative rat-run routes? I don't see how it does. I think it is an independent modification of the scheme, the intention of which is to appease resident motorists who have obviously mounted a campaign with the assistance of their expensive pro-motorist lawyer.
As for the rest of your post, yeah I agree there are a lot of things about this approach that are problematic.
I don't think it's a good solution at all. I'm undecided on whether it's a "better than nothing" solution or not.
Like I said in an earlier post, I'll be interested to see if they can demonstrate a modal shift in local traffic which is one of the things the TfL funding is supposed to be contingent upon. If I had more time on my hands and if I lived in that area I'd be doing some FOIs I reckon.
editor
hiraethified
Rushy
basically a scrotum
I'm not proposing either of those things. Our road classification system is an archane thing dating back to way before satnavs, GPS or even internet. Different road classifications allow different things; these can be reflected in the satnav routing (e.g. satnav knows you can do 70 on motorways), but they do not actually relate to the use of Satnav. There is no reason why road classifications could not be updated so that their classification governs how all roads can be used in routing technology. For instance (and I'm not being terribly specific here but just trying to illustrate my point) local roads classified LTN cannot be used in the planning of routes which do not start or end in or close to that road / zone. Maybe rather than reclassifying roads, LTNs are simply superimposed on top of them. Maybe it could be voluntary but I would imagine that it would need to be a statutory thing. I don't think it is really any more complicated than current route planning which calculates routes differently for bikes, pedestrians and vehicles according to road restrictions. In fact now that I think about it, I think it is unlikely that something like this will not happen.
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
One way of achieving this would be to use geofencing to control vehicle behaviour. It could be a really good solution and far more sophisticated than the blunt instruments discussed on this thread. LA has applied this technology to electric scooters to control speed and there’s no technological reason why it can’t be applied to motor vehicles. It could also be used to introduce road-user pricing, which is another good option to limit congestion.
There are however huge political barriers to introducing this kind of scheme. In a world in which speed cameras are controversial it’s unlikely to happen. Politics Is the art of the possible, and sometimes all that Is possible is a half-baked solution.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Yeah, as soon as this would be permitted politically, you could remove all sorts of physical infrastructure and visual clutter from the streets, that only has to be there because of motor vehicles.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
Yes - I really would like road user pricing. Not just because I drove barely over 1,000 miles last year and nearly all of that was off peak and about 99% outside London. Bit gutted that my campervan is going to cost £12.50 every time I move it in the ULEZ next year. Because I use it infrequently but for longer journeys it does not make financial sense to sell it.
The geofencing will surely come in with automated cars? and as young users get used to the idea on things like scooters. And even perhaps being tracked for insurance policies. But I can see that it would be a hot potato before then, as you say. I think my suggestion would be far less controversial in the meantime - it does not control you. It just stops satnavs sending traffic into smaller roads and zones in order to avoid busy main roads.
thebackrow
Considerably more Brixton.
Yes, great idea. GPS controlled speed limiters as well to make it impossible for vehicles to speed while your at it and also move to 'parking in marked bays only'. Could then remove all of the yellow lines and vast amount of other visual clutter that goes with it.
Winot
I wholeheartedley agree with your viewpoint
I‘ve got no problem with your objective. I just think it might be tricky to achieve legally.
You wouldn’t be able to stop Google Maps (for example) showing routes along the roads you wanted to exclude, because people would still be able to cycle/walk down them. So you’d end up with Google publishing a route with a disclaimer saying ‘not to be used by motor vehicles’. Motorists would use it anyway and you’d be back to the problem of enforcement.
Ever bought NO2 capsules? You used only used them to whip cream, right
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Its nearing its target of 500.
Lot of comments on the petition complaining of lack of consultation. That the Council are using the powers they have under Pandemic to push this through without consultation.
Be interesting to see how Council deal with the petition.
Last edited:
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I take it if Lambeth decide to alter any of the Lambeth LTN in response to comments / opposition this will be appeasement of the motorist.
Whilst if Lambeth ignore criticism of these schemes/ feedback that is critical it will that will be ok.
And Im not talking about abandoning these schemes like in LJ.
Im talking about modifying them if needed following full consultation once Covid emergency is over.
Any modification is now to be considered appeasement.
Whether it involves expensive lawyers is not the issue.
Just want to get this clear as someone who has said I critically support these LTN.
Im therefore an appeaser.
Whilst if Lambeth ignore criticism of these schemes/ feedback that is critical it will that will be ok.
And Im not talking about abandoning these schemes like in LJ.
Im talking about modifying them if needed following full consultation once Covid emergency is over.
Any modification is now to be considered appeasement.
Whether it involves expensive lawyers is not the issue.
Just want to get this clear as someone who has said I critically support these LTN.
Im therefore an appeaser.
Rushy
basically a scrotum
I‘ve got no problem with your objective. I just think it might be tricky to achieve legally.
You wouldn’t be able to stop Google Maps (for example) showing routes along the roads you wanted to exclude, because people would still be able to cycle/walk down them. So you’d end up with Google publishing a route with a disclaimer saying ‘not to be used by motor vehicles’. Motorists would use it anyway and you’d be back to the problem of enforcement.
Ever bought NO2 capsules? You used only used them to whip cream, right
You could certainly search travel by other means but I don't think it would be a particularly practical. Walking / cycling routes take you through parks, alleys, pedestrian zones, contraflows, one way roads, etc.. So you couldn't confidently use that to plan a longer driving route (we're talking through traffic, not little local journeys which folk don't use a satnav for anyway). Loads of rat runs are longer in distance but quicker because you miss lights or traffic - e.g. avoiding Effra Road via St Matthews Road (apparently). So even choosing bike or foot on google you would not necessarily be shown another route. And much of the rerouting which diverts cars into side streets is automatic changes, mid journey to avoid traffic. So yeah, I agree people could get around it by spending time dissecting a route. Even just by looking at a good old fashioned A-Z. But it would not be very practical.
Either satnavs are responsible for sending people into these areas or they are not. If that is true, as some have argued, then I think this might make quite a big difference.
Let's face it. There's always a way around everything. I've met more than one driver who claimed to have successfully used invisible IR film over their number plates to prevent them being read by ANPR cameras.
Anyway - this is just a fun little digression from the main topic, which I think I am going to step away from (the main topic) as I am not actually sure what the point is.
Last edited:
Rushy
basically a scrotum
OK - well I'll step away from the discussion after putting this here, which I stumbled across immediately after posting:
www.theguardian.com
Not really sure what it means but ... Power to the Residents!
Residents to get new decision-making powers in England cycling 'revolution'
Measures include watchdog to ensure quality and safety of walking and cycling routes
Not really sure what it means but ... Power to the Residents!
teuchter
je suis teuchter
Not by me.
madolesance
Well-Known Member
Some other news related to the road closers around Ferndale and other streets the foot bridge between Dolman Street and Hubert Grove is currently closed to pedestrians and folks that could be bothered to carry their bicycle/ pram over the tracks. Not sure how users of motor vehicles will feel about this apart from complain to anyone who might listen to them.
snowy_again
Slush
You’d struggle to get 2 lifts in that budget.
Lots of new LTN planning guidance released today as part of the wider cycling national plan. I’ll post later
Lots of new LTN planning guidance released today as part of the wider cycling national plan. I’ll post later
snowy_again
Slush
LTN design guidelines:
‘Cycle infrastructure guide’
‘Cycle infrastructure guide’
snowy_again
Slush
And the national Gearing Up for Change document:
The titles’ pun is laboured as it’s a walking guide too.
The titles’ pun is laboured as it’s a walking guide too.
snowy_again
Slush
1/3rd of London commuting now by bike too
Similar threads
