Forum topic: Plans for Fox Lane low-traffic neighbourhood published

I saw a very elderly lady trying cross Fox Lane yesterday. She was pushing a shopping trolley. She was trying to cross the road - no-one stopped for her. She waited and waited and eventually gambled on crossing as fast as she could. To her the roads are a barrier - I'm sure she'll welcome the streets on our Estate being opened up to pedestrians and cyclists.

In his last post to this thread Graham Bennett said this:

"The rationale for the particular design has not been explained. For example, on what basis do they believe the reduction in journeys made will offset the extra length of journeys that are made? What have they found from other schemes - what are the hallmarks of a successful scheme?"

So let us begin by re-stating the Council's policy which is to create a Quieter Neighbourhood (QN).

Here are the Council's aims:
- reduce the volume of motor traffic in residential neighbourhoods
-reduce the speeds that people drive at on our residential streets
-reduce the ability for people driving to 'rat run' through residential streets
- improve the liveability, amenity and safety of our neighbourhoods
-enable residents to walk and cycle safely from their front door, to connect with
public transport or major walking and cycling routes
-increase the health and wellbeing of residents and strengthen community
cohesion ".

Note that there are no references to length of journeys within the QN; it's all about 'quality of life'.

Now it seems to me that on the Council's original design for this QN, which provides for only one entrance for vehicles, the amount of driving internally by residents/visitors/trades people will be more than really desirable, and it is on that issue we should be concentrating. Unless of course you are against the concept as it seems many people are. Personally I think the concept is wonderful............ not least because the scheme should enable kids to play on the streets, or at least make their own journeys within the QN; a bit less dominance for drivers, a bit more for parents and kids on foot.

Now I'm going to repeat something I've said in other threads, and elswhere: kids have had a bad deal from the 'car-age'. As a child before the car-age really got going I played on my parents residential street, sometimes even after dark - it's been a long time since most children had those freedoms. That change is "the hallmark of a successful scheme"

With 3500 households in the Fox Lane area a rough view suggests perhaps 5-600 within the Meadway area would have been rerouted by the original proposal (Ridgeway, Greenway and others to the north). Assume for simplicity that they each have one car (some will have more, other less) and each household does a there and back journey every day (again some will do more, others less). That’s a ballpark 1200 vehicle throughput per day. Add in deliveries, friend’s visits, tradesman and sundry and also reduce for these same residents and third parties already using the proposed exit streets and it’s unlikely it’ll reach 1500 vehicle through trips per day.
That’s about 25% of what Fox Lane residents suffer; less than half of what is seen in eg The Mall or Amberley, also Old Park Road; and also less than several other local streets. And it’s not pleasant at those higher levels.
So perhaps the real issue is the incremental journey time for many. Why the large cul de sac approach rather than, say, closing streets in the middle I don’t know. Possibly it’s a necessary coherence for the emergency services or bin wagons, or maybe just representing how new housing estates would be laid out.
It would be helpful for residents if the council could explain a little more background, possibly to include details they hold on trip numbers and entry / exit journeys, which informed their suggestion.

With respect, I think some of those making comments on this forum are missing the point. The quieter neighbourhood aspects are a nice side effect to our primary concern, that of reducing our individual and communal global carbon footprint. There is little use in making the streets safe for children to play on, if their own children will be forced to exist in a world made completely inhospitable and dangerous by those who do not take the climate threat seriously. Petrol and diesel cars and commercial vehicles need to be banned and well before the currently proposed timescale and more money put into public transport to make it effective, clean and a “no-brainer” choice for moving about.

As I have mentioned before, there will be some uncomfortable changes we all will have to make. Removing meat from our diets, not travelling by aircraft (which will incidentally boost our domestic tourist industry), sourcing our products and purchases locally, building new sustainable property and properly insulating the homes that have already been built. Replacing all concrete and slate roofs with solar panels for those that can afford it and by heavily subsidising the work for those who cannot. Opting to buy our energy from a company that sources its power from 100% renewable sources. Where possible, working from home and highly discouraging events such as pop concerts and sporting events that induce many individuals to needlessly travel. I am aware that most of these changes are already in the boiling pot but the time has come to take this threat seriously and to take action now.

Chelsea D. you are spot-on in reminding us that there is much to be done towards reducing carbon emissions, but we live in a context where the State is not prepared to take the necessary steps to limit car use. Meanwhile most people value the flexibility of car, and are prepared to take the climate risk. However, the envisaged change to the Lakes Estate - not being able to use it as a shortcut/less congested route - might, in the very long run, persuade at least some through-drivers to travel by a different means.

I should remind you that the Council has in recent times created cycle lanes on the A105 Green Lanes, thereby encouraging cycling, and restraining traffic in the expectation that some drivers will abandon their cars, and either walk, cycle or use public transport for short journeys. These sorts of changes are not a quick fix, but they do show that, at least whilst the current councillors are in power, some pressure on carbon emissions is being made.

All of which you will think is not nearly enough, and I agree. But Councils can only operate within their powers.

Well said, Chelsea. There’s going to be many tough choices to make.