Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Three trial LTNs recommended to become permanent
Just looking at the agenda pack for next week's council meeting the recommendation is that all three are made permanent.
https://www.minutes.haringey.gov.uk/mgChooseDocPack.aspx?ID=10862
It's all pretty dense, this is a ChatGPT summary of it I've seen which seems to tally with the bits I've looked through but no guaranteeing how accurate it is:
Recommendation
Make all 3 trial LTNs permanent due to improvements in active travel, reduced traffic, and safety benefits.
### St. Ann's LTN
1. *Traffic Reduction*: Achieved a 57% reduction in traffic on internal roads, equating to 35,834 fewer vehicles per day, with a modest 5% increase on boundary roads.
2. *Active Travel*: Encouraged dockless cycling with 15,500 trips starting or ending in the area monthly.
3. *Air Quality*: Observed minor changes in air quality, with no significant statistical impact.
4. *Safety Improvements*: Reduced collisions by 29% on internal roads and 21% on boundary roads.
5. *Public Feedback*: Mixed views but growing support for walking, cycling, and safety enhancements.
6. *Recommendation*: Make the trial permanent due to improvements in active travel, reduced traffic, and safety benefits.
### Bounds Green LTN
1. *Traffic Reduction*: Saw a 66% reduction in traffic on internal roads (16,076 fewer vehicles daily) with a minor 2% increase on boundary roads.
2. *Active Travel*: Increased dockless cycling by 9,000 trips monthly, though traditional cycling dipped due to weather.
3. *Air Quality*: Minimal changes, with no significant statistical variation observed.
4. *Safety Improvements*: Collisions decreased by 50% on internal roads and 17% on boundary roads.
5. *Public Feedback*: Mixed responses, with an increase in support for quieter, safer streets.
6. *Recommendation*: Support permanent implementation, highlighting gains in reduced traffic, active travel, and safety.
### Bruce Grove West Green LTN
1. *Traffic Reduction*: Achieved a 51% reduction in internal road traffic (43,316 fewer vehicles daily) with a slight 3% rise on boundary roads.
2. *Active Travel*: Cycling rose by 33%, supported by dockless bike use.
3. *Air Quality*: Slight improvement in nitrogen dioxide levels on internal and boundary roads.
4. *Safety Improvements*: Collisions reduced by 56% on internal roads and 18% on boundary roads.
5. *Public Sentiment*: Improved acceptance and satisfaction with walking, cycling, and reduced noise levels.
6. *Recommendation*: Make permanent due to substantial reductions in traffic and safety benefits.
[Report of the Director for Environment and Resident Services. To be introduced by Cabinet Member for Climate Action, Environment & Transport.
“Consider all feedback, objections and monitoring data of the trial LTNs and decide whether to make permanent the associated traffic orders.”]
Tags for Forum Posts: low traffic neighbourhoods, st anns ltn, traffic
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by JamesN
-
What purpose does this serve, Andrew? The summary 'statistics' are comical in their abuse of logic. A look at the appendices shows brazen misrepresentations being served up by the Council in terms of traffic 'reductions', 'increases', active travel, and safety.
No change in cycling... so let's include the data from newly introduced bike hire companies.
Roads within the LTN are statistically MORE dangerous if the data for traffic reductions (-57% St Ann's) and collisions (-29%) are taken at face value.
Air quality unchanged. Despite the patently dishonest cries from the safer streets lobby that they were 'saving the children and the planet'
Their home values have increased, and they can listen to their rest is politics podcasts in a little more peace, but that's about it. As for the net value or benefit of the LTNs, well that's not measured. Nor was it ever going to be.
-
-
I didn't write it so can't really answer your question, but one thing it did make me think about (as did the recent furore around the parking permits) is how document heavy, and often technical, this stuff is for councillors that in many cases aren't doing this as a full time job.
I felt going heavy on the bike hire stats was a bit cheeky but on the other hand cycling is cycling. Some effort could have been taken to normalise it against areas in the borough without the LTN though.
The roads are still statistically LESS dangerous in absolute terms in your example (which is what people really care about). If you go from 1,000 cars injuring 100 people to 100 cars injuring 15 people not many people are going to view that as more dangerous.
-
Permalink Reply by Sarah
-
It's a shame that traffic counters aren't sensitive enough to register bikes. I've felt a lot more confident to cycle through St Anns since the LTN was introduced. I have MS and I started cycling as a way to get to work during lockdown, as I didn't want to take public transport due to being clinically vulnerable. But that first mile out of Haringey was always the worst part of my journey - there was much better infrastructure through Hackney, Islington and Camden. The LTN has really improved things and helped me to feel safer to get to work.
-
-
There are the Vivacity cameras which were based on image recognition (so could identify cars, bikes, pedestrians, etc) and were running 24/7 so could give a much more detailed picture by hour but also month on month, etc.
For whatever reason they haven't been mentioned at all in the monitoring. I did request counts from them from the council (or that they just update the figures on the website as promised) but they have been very soundly ignored
-
-
Cycle traffic IS measured by the ATCs, Sarah. Their sensitivity is not an issue.
The data is presented in the files linked to in the original post.
Despite the thousands of LTNs and billions of pounds spent on cycle infrastructure, there has been no change in cycling nationally since pre-covid levels. The local data is no anomaly.
-
Permalink Reply by JulieB
-
I don't understand why there has been no improvement in air quality within the LTNs, maybe any improvement of reduced car pollution is off set by wood burning fires in homes. I thought air quality was one of the big reasons to impose the LTNs, so I don't think they can be counted as successful by this measure.
My experience of trying to get a bus on West Green Road is much worse than a modest 5% increase in traffic would suggest, but maybe even this 'modest' increase has lead to big queues on West Green Road especially in the mornings and evenings.
-
Permalink Reply by Niall
-
JulieB, your contribution sums up the problem with LTNs in a nutshell. Traffic pollution can’t read the signs and flows freely from boundary roads to other streets. So the schools on St Annes road, for example, will gain nothing in air quality from the quieter streets around the back, particularly if there is increased congestion out the front. A large percentage decrease of traffic in already quiet roads (a modest number of cars hourly) does not compare to a small percentage increase in traffic on already congested main roads - where this can make the difference between slow moving traffic and gridlock - with a consequent increase in pollution and bus reliability, which affects everyone.
The case of Ella who died of asthma caused by traffic pollution in South London is a case in point
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yx6leg4nqo
Her mother, Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, has been a tireless campaigner for justice for her daughter and is a relentless advocate for ULEZ and other anti-pollution measures. She has no time for LTNs and has repeatedly criticised them for pushing pollution onto the streets where working class and BAME communities are more likely to live and work.Of course it is natural for people to want to ‘do something’ to combat the havoc that cars wreck on our lives - and for cash-strapped councils, free government money for LTNs must seem attractive. But the answer does not lie in a few quiet streets in North London getting quieter. As our European neighbours have shown us, city-wide solutions with cheap and reliable public transport can transform cities and radically change environments.
Divisive NIMBYism helps nobody, while pollution goes unchecked, and King Car rules the roost.
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
