@Arbourimage my previous reply failed, so here goes, this is going to be long, but as you raised queries, please read:
Arbourimage · Today 09:17
There is nothing to back up your claim that independent or small business have been decimated for a start, absolutely nothing to back up your claim that he has “decimated local communities”, **
Am afraid there's plenty.....
https://www.newstatesman.com/world/uk/2020/11/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-ltns-london-car-street-cycling-walking-culture-war-pollution-gentrification
https://activetravelstudies.org/article/id/1763/
Shared concerns: unequal outcomes
A concern that emerged in the implementation of LTNs is the potential for increases in levels of motor traffic on boundary roads and a subsequent reduction in local air quality. Residents were concerned about the implications for equality. For Charlotte (P11), who had observed a reduction in symptoms of her children’s asthma that she associated with there being less traffic on the road during the initial Covid-19 lockdown in the UK: “If certain residents are going to bear the brunt of it… I think that is unfair, and they shouldn’t have to suffer.”
It is also instructive that perceptions of LTNs were influenced by perceptions of social inequality. In Levenshulme, interviewees were concerned about potential gentrification – “I love the filter, but at the same time I was like, this is more reason for our landlord to increase our rent” (Claire P13). For others, there was a perception that LTNs could improve the neighbourhood at the expense of the boundary roads – “that’s almost saying that all of us that live off it, on the other roads that come out, don’t exist or don’t matter, we’re not part of Levenshulme” (Ellie P10).
Conversely, residents of Garside Hey felt that the decision to implement an LTN there was a reflection of their inequality and relative deprivation:
I guess the perception is people who live in a private estate probably wouldn’t stand for and allow anything like that to happen, full stop, whereas somewhere like around here – I don’t want to use words that are belittling, but I guess that round here they think people have got less of a choice having stuff done. (Kevin P1, Garside Hey Road)
Interviewees mentioned that they considered the planters to be “ugly” and to indicate that social housing needed to be “penned in”. Far from gentrification, they hinted at ghettoization: “keeping the council estate out of the way of the and creating a clean sweep down Garside Hey Road to the more expensive estate” (Kevin P1, Garside Hey Road).
Similar frustrations – processes of LTN implementation
In addition to similar desires in terms of better neighbourhoods for everyone and concerns regarding inequalities – albeit with different perspectives on their resolution – there were also some shared frustrations with processes of LTN implementation amongst participants. These tended to transcend differences in their overall positions on LTNs. These frustrations are important to note as they impact resident perceptions of the capacity of local authorities to implement interventions such as LTNs. They also contribute to increasing friction between residents with differing opinions.
Frustrations with processes of monitoring and evaluation were related to perceived inadequacies in the monitoring that was carried out. Approaches such as traffic counts and air quality monitoring, for example, could enable effective evaluation by providing data on whether LTNs successfully increased levels of walking and cycling as well as whether LTNs negatively impacted boundary roads in relation to air quality and traffic levels. The absence of monitoring was particularly critical for the go-along participants that were ambivalent, who were often waiting on data to make up their minds on whether they support their local LTN. For example, Charlotte commented on the absence of data on the LTN trial in Levenshulme:
I felt a bit saddened by that, and I’m very – I’m a data person. I use a lot of data in my job, and I felt like there hadn’t been any data collection to give you the value of this is what it was before and this is what it is after, so that really concerned me. (Charlotte P11)
Another side to these concerns about monitoring stemmed from the way in which existing data was being used, and how this related to the siting of the LTN. One participant reflected that air quality monitoring had found high levels of pollution on the boundary roads and therefore they did not understand why the measures were going in on the side streets, where pollution levels were lower:
I think people are upset as well with that, the fact that a report that identified all illegal levels of pollution on boundary roads. It has been used in a bid submission where actual interventions are going in the on the side streets, which probably have the much lower pollution level. I think people are upset. I think they’re angry. I think they’re frustrated. All sorts of emotions. Betrayed. I think betrayal’s a big one. (Kevin, P1)
Frustrations with processes of communication related both to how local authorities initially communicated the plans for an LTN trial and to the ongoing processes of communication leading up to and during an LTN trial. In general, residents received flyers through their doors to inform them about an upcoming LTN trial or consultation on implementing one. For residents who were not already actively engaged in local walking and cycling campaigning, these flyers were sometimes overlooked or had not been received: “I was told there was something came through the post, or something. You get a lot of junk mail, and it goes. It got lost and you don’t really see it” (Tara, P15). In Garside Hey Road, Natalie (P2) observed a similar concern: “There was a bit at first because there were loads [of people] going, ‘What is this? We’ve not been told. You’ve not put a leaflet through.’”
There was also concern around ongoing communication, and particularly the role that councillors had in the process. Participants considered that councillors and council officers should be providing information and also spend more time promoting the scheme and working to allay concerns regarding it. This was articulated by Jane (P8): “Someone really does kind of need to champion it… And it’s the project team and the councillors who should be really working to communicate.” Participants felt this lack of clear ownership exacerbated friction between those for and against the LTNs within the community as residents, instead of councillors and council officers, stepped in to advocate for the scheme.
Whilst these concerns about effective and democratic engagement are reflected in recent LTN literature (Dudley, Banister and Schwanen, 2022; Pritchett, Bartington and Neil Thomas, 2024), the interviewees suggest that the context created by the Covid-19 lockdowns added a further layer of challenge characterised by a reliance on online communication:
There was no way to have a public meeting, there was no way to engage; it was all online. The toxic nature of that, that it is, I think that definitely made it a lot harder, and also just made it nastier – because people were already struggling with something strange, in their experiences and the anxieties round about that. Then your schemes coming in and changing, and we can’t go and speak to anyone: we can’t see the councillors at the surgeries, and we can’t go into meeting; we can’t all thrash this out and be civil about it. It just amplified it. (Natalie, P2)
Unequal experiences – places for walking
Perhaps the theme around which there were the greatest differences and inequality of experiences was infrastructure for walking. This affected those who were walking the majority of their everyday journeys. LTNs were not considered to be an improvement to walking experiences as they were not, in their current form, addressing many of the factors that impede the pedestrian experience – for example, pavement parking, poor pavement conditions, and lack of dropped kerbs and crossing points. Tara described the pavements during a go-along:
Then you’ve got the pavements that are up even, up and down, and it’s just, it is a struggle. This road round here with cars coming round, it is bad. I have to actually get the children to walk on the pavement, the ones that walk. I have to take the buggy on to the middle of the road. Sometimes you do get the children, because they have learned, “Stay with me, follow me on to the road,” and it just feels like you’d have a heart attack. (Tara, P15)
Similar discussions on the importance of pavement infrastructure were covered in the focus group discussions with older adults. While, as discussed, the idea of active neighbourhoods was considered positive by older adults, the absence in investment in pavement infrastructures was considered to detract from the ability to support older adults to actively access their local neighbourhood. For example, participants in the focus group discussions described having to stare down at the ground to prevent themselves from tripping over as they walked. As one older person expressed: “I am so sick of walking in my area looking at the pavements” (Focus Group 2). Another noted how pavement conditions contributed to her isolation: “I don’t drive, and it’s impossible for me to walk to the shops because of the state of the pavements” (Focus Group 1).
The absence of dropped kerbs was another factor inhibiting older people’s mobility: “my husband has an electric wheelchair, and he can’t manage the pavements. He can’t get on and off” (Focus Group 1). Older people in the two focus groups noted that, in addition to wheelchair users needing such kerbs, they are also necessary for people with reduced mobility as well as parents pushing prams:
What I do find is there’s not enough sloped kerbs. You get them for someone’s drive and maybe at a corner, but if you’ve got a long street area there’s no slope. They need to put a lot more sloped kerbs in, not just for wheelchairs, people with prams, people using walking sticks. (Focus Group 1)
Participants saw a need for dropped kerbs at frequent points along pavements to enable them to cross filtered roads within LTNs and therefore be able to take the most efficient walking routes to destinations: “they shouldn’t just be on corners as it’s harder to cross the road on a corner, especially if there’s no traffic lights” (Focus Group 1).
Older people considered pavement parking to further exacerbate their difficulties in walking in their local areas. Pavement parking commonly narrows available pavements, increasing difficulties in walking, particularly if older people must then navigate out into the road, an issue accentuated by a lack of dropped kerbs. Older people also attributed poor pavement conditions to vehicles parking on the pavements and expressed disappointment in their local representatives for inaction around pavement parking: “Parking on pavements? If the councillors aren’t going to do anything then democracy isn’t good anymore. Ears are deaf” (Focus Group 2).
Sources of division
LTNs as interventions for cycling
Whilst those who both cycled and walked for transport in their local neighbourhoods tended to be supportive of LTNs, those who predominantly walked were less supportive, or were ambivalent. Those who primarily walked for their local journeys and were not in favour of LTNs, tended to perceive LTNs to be a cycling intervention. For example, according to Charlotte (P11) in Levenshulme, “it seemed like it was more geared towards cycling, the whole thing. The leaflet that came through seemed like it was all geared towards that [cycling], so I didn’t really get involved.” Similarly, Terry (P17) in Trinity and Islington noted that “we [Terry and his neighbours] assumed it was all to do with cycling at first,” with Alicia (P19) identifying street changes as ways to make cycling safer: “I think the reason why they want to close Mount Street is because the crossing with the Blackfriars Road is dangerous to bikes.”
LTNs in context of transport policy
We can observe that the opinions of participants on LTNs tended to be influenced by how they perceived these developments within broader policy area of modal shift in Greater Manchester. Those who were supportive tended to see LTNs as one component of wider processes, such as further LTNs, more comprehensive cycling networks, and the forthcoming reregulation of buses (and anticipation therefore of more frequent buses, better coverage, and a London-style pricing system) in the region (GMCA, 2021). During a go-along in Levenshulme, Jeff (P9) discussed seeing LTNs as the first step in wider progress on reallocating road space and supporting walking and cycling:
Everyone’s seeking to reduce car use, and you’ve got to start somewhere. If you can get a behaviour change in the zones… It might not have a big impact on reducing the overall traffic on the boundary roads but it’s a start.
Jeff also spent time during the go-along reflecting on the wider changes that need to happen on boundary roads, such as implementing width barriers to reduce numbers of HGVs and bus gates to improve overall vehicle levels on boundary roads.
Conversely, those who were ambivalent or unsupportive tended to perceive their local LTN as more of a singular, isolated intervention, rather than placing it within a wider set of changes. These interviewees considered any inequalities produced through LTNs to be a fixed, rather than changeable, outcome. For example, Jane (P8) felt that supporters of LTNs considered the boundary roads as the space where more traffic should go: “then it almost felt like we were becoming somewhere where people could say, that’s where the traffic should be, and that’s where it should go.” This perception is very different to what Jeff (P9) is saying in the previous paragraph, as he is actively campaigning for interventions to improve boundary roads and therefore evidencing that he is making connections between the LTN and the surrounding area.
A similar perception relating to the notion that the LTN is disconnected from wider mobility and planning policy is demonstrated by Valerie (P22) in explaining her opposition: “I think the main thing is, if you want to encourage people to leave their cars behind, the one thing you’ve got to do first, is improve public transport.” Whilst Valerie perceived her local LTN to be disconnected from improvements in public transport, measures to increase levels of active travel in Greater Manchester were in fact going hand in hand with improvements in public transport (GMCA, 2021), as discussed previously. This highlights the importance of communication and emphasises the value of placing local developments in the context of other initiatives and changes.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/nov/20/birdsong-and-community-coming-round-to-low-traffic-neighbourhoods
https://www.camdennewjournal.co.uk/article/traffic-displacement-has-led-to-an-uncomfortable-division
https://shapes.place/2021/06/25/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-more-divisive-than-brexit/
Negative impacts on independent businesses:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgk3r4k8z00o
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/02/11/haringey-ltn-changed-business-models-overnight-sparking-high/
https://www.elbpartners.com/ulez-is-driving-businesses-out-of-london/
www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/entrepreneuracademy/article-12368497/What-low-traffic-neighbourhood-hurting-business.html
there’s nothing to back up your claim that emergency response times have been reduced by LTNs either, in fact several studies by the London Fire Brigade have shown this to not be the case.
Not so:
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/article/ltn-london-low-traffic-zone-areas-street-report-sqtcn3qmd
https://www.greenwichgonetoofar.co.uk/emergency-service-delays.html
he London Ambulance Service (LAS) re-issued a blanket warning to all local authorities against 'changes to road layout, traffic management schemes and road closures' which LAS says are known to 'have the potential to impeded our response to the most critically-ill people'. Services prefer ANPR in all cases, permitting unimpeded access to ambulances, fire engines and the police. The letter, sent on 17 October 2023 reminded Greenwich that all London boroughs and TfL had been warned of the contents more than three years ago on 5 July 2020.
Earlier Freedom of Information Act (FoI) disclosures showed that emergency services were only given 48 hours in July 2020 to comment on schemes. Service at that time condemned hard closures such as bollards and planters as highly dangerous and potentially putting life at risk. The Greenwich hard closures rebounded badly on the Council. Complaints of delayed ambulances were the underlying reason for modifying the 2020 LTN, and subsequently removing it in February 2022.
This makes for worrying reading: https://www.london-fire.gov.uk/media/8688/foi-response-80021-greenwich-ltn-4.pdf
This supports the fact that emergency services were excluded from the planning process: https://www.fromthemurkydepths.co.uk/2021/07/04/emergency-services-raise-problems-with-greenwich-low-traffic-neighbourhoods/
The council then ignored warniong letters and public questions in relation to this issue: https://committees.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/documents/s16336/Sept%20Public%20Questions%20Responses.pdf
And from a previous LAS chief:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/03/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-delaying-paramedics-warns-former/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/09/03/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-delaying-paramedics-warns-former/
I have a disabled young child, live in a LTN and have seen zero negative effect in the local area. School areas are safer now traffic isn’t allowed during those times, the high street is thriving and safer with a lack of cars, hospitality businesses have been able to expand onto the pedestrian street to increase revenue, the lack of traffic provides space for new initiatives like a Halloween disco on the high street, late night Christmas shopping with stalls on the street for food and drink, summer party events and an annual summer festival have improved the local community hugely.
Tangible benefits.
This all really lovely, but surely you realise that the tangible benefits you are seeing are exclusive to you and those few residents within your exclusive zone? How about other SEND parents in your position, but not blessed by yoour location? They are forced into school run times 4 x daily which are in many areas, quadrupled. Not helped by the fact of course that school places for our disabled children are rarely in walking distance of our homes, we all are forced to travel extensively to ensure their needs are met. Bus routes have been reduced in frequency, which means packed and prolonged journey times due to the high levels oof traffic from boundary areas and beyond your area, thus seeing anything but "tangible benefits" This obilterates the ability of many parents to hold down work as understandably, most employers are not so sympathetic tto parents needing 3- 4 hours daily on the school run. This may not be your experience, but I can tell you firsthand it is a grim reality for many of us, with no choice, yet your location alone negates our right to enjoy our local area, get children safely to school on time, hold employment or a life, just because your street gets to host a Halloween street party. Forgive me, but this is just nuts.
Then there are other barriers to consider that I genuinely hope your child is unaffected by. Those with visual impairments are placed at risk of harm via the floating bus stops, why is this acceptable?
https://www.rnib.org.uk/news/rnib-demonstrates-the-dangers-of-floating-bus-stops-ahead-of-key-vote/
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/120877/html/
These are still being implemented, despite safety concerns being raised in 2016:
https://www.transportforall.org.uk/blog/2016/05/19/tfl-stop-building-floating-bus-stops-until-safety-concerns-are-dealt-with/
And now... the "tangible benefits" you speak of:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gllpxx6d3o
https://enfielddispatch.co.uk/traffic-congestion-worsened-by-ltns-and-bus-lanes-in-some-parts-of-london-tfl-admits/
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tfl-suppressed-report-ltns-car-use-b1248287.html
https://www.regit.cars/car-news/tfl-admits-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-are-making-london-traffic-worse
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/04/29/ltn-traffic-jams-slow-buses-tfl-london/
I really hope this affords you some understanding that the tangible benefits you see are a very much limited experience, from those in privileged areas, predictably white, middle class, traditionally Labour voting. Those of bus in London enduring anything but tangible benefits have a very different experience, it brings great misery and stress, which is difficult to reconcile, when there are literally no improvements to either car us, congestion or improvements to alternative travel methods.