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 Dyl on
-
I think these LTNs are fantastic, they have made commuting on a bike so much nicer. Not everyone owns a car!
-
Permalink Reply by Don on
-
Dyl — No, not everyone owns a car, but in planning LTNs no consideration is ever given to the fact that pushing yet more traffic onto overcrowded major roads such as WGR or GL instead also severely impedes buses, thus undermining one of the supposed key rationales. The LTN theory is entirely predicated on use of a stick, not a carrot: the priority should be to improve public transport before closing roads, to give people a viable alternative and persuade them to use it, when, instead, the policy is just to make life more difficult and restrictive so as to try and stop people from doing something. And, incidentally, St Ann’s was so quiet and bike-friendly before the LTN that my road was used every week for cycle training for groups of (supervised) schoolchildren. Now, it’s as much a rat-run for Deliveroo and Just Eat mopeds speeding to their next drop-off by avoiding the jams on GL, WGR and St Ann’s Road. Improvement? Hardly!
-
-
I agree with you.I have walked the streets with my dog for years and most of them were already pretty quiet and it's something I used to comment on.
-
Permalink Reply by kotkas on
-
Great news! Years from now people will celebrate the positive impact from these changes and will have completely forgotten the minor grumbles which unfairly threatened the full implementation of LTNs. Fundamentally these are about behaviour change and hopefully will further supress car ownership, which for many (but agree not all) who live in London is utterly nonsensical.
-
-
I agree. The sooner there are LTNs across the Borough the better.
-
-
I think part of the challenge, though, is the number of people who need their car (or van, truck etc) for work purposes. At rush hour in the mornings I’d say around 50% of the vehicles I see are clearly business vehicles for tradespeople and others. Public transport or a bike is not a viable alternative for them, and yet by being forced onto a smaller number of roads - along with the buses - they are contributing to the overall slow traffic on said roads which makes the use of public transport less attractive.
There’s a secondary issue around the routes taken by public transport too, of course - it’s easy to get North or South, but how easy is it to get the same distance West or East? I work in Redbridge and will admit to being a car commuter as my 35-minute car journey takes 85-90 on public transport. I’m fortunate in that by going against the traffic the increased numbers of vehicles on roads at rush hour doesn’t affect me hugely, but until public transport is seriously improved - both in terms of radial routes (an international issue - lots of research on this online if interested) and length of journeys more generally, public transport is not a viable option for me - and others like me.
-
-
If 50 % of people are traders etc then 50 % aren't - car commuters are rare in London not least because it's hard to find car parking / it's expensive to park. It's the 50% who aren't traders etc who these changes are aimed at like all the school run people who absolutely don't need to drive.
-
-
Elizabeth: Just out of interest, what advice would you give KateH about her commute to her workplace? She provides a practical example of why cars can be needed.
Her position doesn’t appear to show a failure to consider “social justice or pollution” which you condemned in a broadbrush comment in an earlier post.
-
-
Well if all the school runners and people who are only going a mile or so who were the people I referenced in my post (the stats say the majority of the journeys in London are that short) stop doing so then more room for those who have really is no viable public transport/ ebike option. From where I am on the west of the borough it takes 55 mins to Redbridge on public transport which is a pretty average commute.
-
-
I’d argue that 55 minutes is quite a long commute compared to those going directly south into central London! But regardless, my workplace is in a part of Redbridge that takes longer via public transport.
I take your point, though, that those doing 1 mile or shorter journeys shouldn’t be using cars, and absolutely agree. I’d be interested to know what proportion of those I see on my daily commute really are doing journeys that short. Meanwhile, though, I stand by my feelings that improving public transport routes and accessibility to green travel should be key priorities. And if LTNs are to stay, I’d advocate for exemptions for those who live inside them - doesn’t affect me now but when I lived in Highbury, my ability to only exit the LTN that I lived in in one direction added around 3 miles to some journeys (thankfully not my daily commute) which seems counterproductive from both a traffic and emissions (were it not that I drive an EV) point of view.
-
-
Katie entirely endorses my point: if public transport is prioritised and improved before an LTN is created, then there’s a viable incentive for people not to use cars. Haringey’s failure to grapple with this (in tandem with TfL and the DoT) in Green Lanes is a major reason for the borough’s problems. I also endose the added mileage problem of LTNs: a clinic I regularly have to attend in Islington is isolated from public transport in an LTN that adds a full mile to access by car or cab, completely negating the purpose of the road closures.
-
-
Green Lanes has had terrible traffic since I first lived off the Ladder in the 80s. I'd be in favour of ditching all the parking and having more 24 hour bus lanes. However I doubt many of the people who get in their cars for short runs like from the Ladder to eg Highbury or Angel care two hoots about the many public transport options available for those journeys as they could use them now and clearly don't. If you are in a position of being unable to walk from the nearest bus or tube or train stop to your destination within a specific Islington LTN then fine take your car but that's not the case for most people.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
