Just gone through in detail the consultation associated with Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. The word Low seems to be a euphemism, no traffic neighbourhood seems to be the order of the day.
I do not understand where the council officers get their data. They state that the majority of residents do not own or use a car. So why is it so difficult to park even if you have a parking permit for the CPZ?
I have a disabled daughter and a wife with ME/Chronic fatigue and there will be no allowances for disabled access in either option. Roads are being shut to traffic, the surrounding area will be grid locked at times impacting the buses. With many of the roads having almost only one way in, how do they get deliveries and the refuse lorries in and around the area. The roads are too narrow for even a 7.5 tonne truck to turn around in. It will be difficult for cars to do three point turns.
I have lived in London since 1979, and in the borough since 1988 and in the St Ann's area since 1997. We have loved it. We raised both our children in the area and our disabled daughter (an adult now) has a support system in place.
We have asked for simple measures to make the roads safer without serious disruption to traffic flow. simple speed and weight limit enforcement would make a huge difference, but the council solution is an LTN which will drive a local garage out of business and make driving around the area almost impossible.
I am not in a minority of one, just come round the area and count the number of parked cars.
If this proposal goes through, I will have to take the early retirement I cannot afford and move away from the city I love.
The car usage comes from the national census. The St Ann's figure is ~ 60% of households do not own or have access to a car https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/reports/localarea?compare=E05000277
I don't think there will be many dead-ends (beyond those that already exist). Most of the proposed filters are camera filters rather than physically stopping vehicles so refuse trucks will still be able to pass through. Even so, looking at the proposed map I can't see many new dead-ends.
There was talk about allowing disabled residents through the filters. I'm not sure what happened to that so I'd suggest pushing for that.
The hope is obviously that traffic around the edge drops down to previous levels once people (and in particular the sat-nav companies) adjust their routes. In a lot of the existing schemes the traffic in the surrounding area has remained pretty similar.
Of course, no-one really knows what's going to happen which is why this is a trial and not a permanent change. The council will be able to collect detailed data after the introduction, see what happens to the traffic levels and then decide whether to make it permanent, tweak it or remove it.
Although I empathize with your plight, sound and pollution created by cars in residential areas is not good for anyone's health and with less cars a neighbourhood is safer.
I'm interested in knowing why At Ann's was one of the first areas for an LTN as it's already got a ton of traffic calming measures and dead ends. I think it's probably because Mike Hakata, leading the charge is a local councillor.
I also agree that other roads may become more congested, however if it's tough for drivers to cut through, the same number of cars will be on the roads, just on the main roads, built for that job, rather than streets that are meant for families.
I hope with the increased use of electric cars and some kind of taxation on cars used only for short journeys (like kids driving around to got to their mates in a Merc) then we might get somewhere making towns liveable.
I think that suspicion is pretty unfounded. Mike Hakata only got involved in the process halfway through after the areas had been selected.
I believe it was down to this substantial TFL document http://content.tfl.gov.uk/lsp-app-six-b-strategic-neighbourhoods-an... St Ann's and Bruce Grove both have higher levels of casualties than other areas in the borough and were rated highly for an LTN.
Look, not saying it's a bad thing, I really want an LTN where I live.
St Ann's as a whole is quiet and low traffic as it is, those deaths come from the main roads, that aren't even affected by the LTN changes.
If you look at page 11 it explicitly excludes those from dividing roads (which would be St. Anns, West Green Rd, Green Lanes and Seven Sisters Rd).
If you look at CrashMap you can see there are plenty of incidents along Black Boy Lane and Woodlands Park Road for instance.
I don't think the council has done a particularly good job of explaining why these areas were chosen for the first LTNs.
Black Boy Lane is a problem with speeding and Driver behaviour around busses. Both can be mitigated by speed and CCTV cameras. This will do nothing to stop the accident rates in West Green Road or St Ann's road.
I suspect that the accidents in Woodlands park road are related to the school run and the type of parking and driver behaviour that occurs then. The South end of Black Boy Lane is also impacted by the school run.
We find the school run crazy and dangerous.
I'm not sure but you might have grounds to ask the council to make reasonable adjustments to enable you/your daughter to get around in the LTN under the Disabilities Discrimination Act. Worth looking into?
I think it would be reasonable to expect the council to make provisions for people in your situation. You're unlikely to be the only family effected in this way.
Totally agree !
with the disability ,I also have and it’s a nightmare for me also
Ian, please don't take early retirement too quickly! You say "no allowances for disabled access", but under either proposal, every single address in the LTN would continue to be accessible by car. What the options prevent (A more so and, IMO, better than B) is THROUGH TRAFFIC by cars. Yes, that would make some local trips a bit more round-about, but that is a well tested way of reducing the overall volume of traffic.
Most of the traffic on Woodlands Park Rd, Black Boy Lane, Cornwall Rd and Avenue Road is not local traffic, but people taking Google's advice to avoid the A10 as they move between the North Circular and points south of us.
Speed restrictions would be nice but who is going to enforce them? All of these roads are 20mph already, and most drivers violate that limit, some by a very wide margin. There is in effect no enforcement, and no budget for it. As long as people are allowed to drive through in a hurry, all the cut-through roads will be speedways.
While people driving through are a big problem, it would not be right for me to simply blame outsiders. You, personally, do have powerful reasons to use a car, but some of the short car trips made by neighbours of ours are not so vital. The LTN would make it a bit safer for those kids who can walk or cycle to get to school on their own; some would find it a bit more pleasant to ride a bike to the shops; it would give others a reason to to combine two shopping trips into one, and still others to get a delivery (which will stop at several houses on one journey, reducing total trips) in place of a car trip to the superstore. It would, yes, do this by making it a bit less convenient to take these short trips by car, but in all the efforts to reduce car traffic in cities around the world, there has almost never been progress without making it a bit less convenient or a bit more costly to drive.
In these ways we can get cleaner air, safer streets, and a reduced carbon footprint.
I encourage you to take a second look at these proposals, and choose Option A. If the scheme works, you could end up with fewer neighbours choosing to own cars, and find it easier to park.
Hello Ian. I’ve had a look at the proposals and every address can currently be reached by a car still can be if the proposals are implemented. What it makes it harder to do is drive through the area on the way to somewhere else.
Or from the area to somewhere else (to play devil's advocate - I do support the proposals even though they'll inconvenience me).
It’ll probably add a minute or two to the journey I would imagine. It might encourage locals who may otherwise drive to pick up the morning paper to walk there if they can.