Forum topic: Fox Lane low-traffic neighbourhood

Excellent piece in the FT:'

'In cities like London, some residents are also angry that roads have been blocked off by flower planters — to create “low traffic neighbourhoods” that put pedestrians and cyclists ahead of car-users. The short answer is: tough. A revolution requires a few barricades. Our cities need more bikes and fewer cars and taxis (or whatever Uber’s legal department calls its vehicles now).'


https://www.ft.com/content/2eb872a9-8afd-4896-bf36-ed7227c0818a?sharetype=blocked

To follow up on Adrian Day's contribution earlier today I'd say that even the national Government will be happy to hear of more walking and cycling. Cars need a lot of London's scarce space whilst current engines and tyres create the poor air quality which is particularly bad news for children. The more flower planters and trees the better.

Why don’t you just move to the countryside. It's only a few miles on the other side of the M25. There are hardly any cars but plenty of natural planters and trees there.

I myself don’t drive or have a car, I walk where I can and use public transport. It is very difficult without a car. I am also a realist and can see how average people cope with the daily challenges of living in London, and why they need a car for work, families etc. The growth in cars in London is not due to pleasure driving but mainly due to both population and economic growth. Miles travelled per car has not gone up over the years but in fact decreasing. The increase in total miles driven on all vehicles is increasing in direct correlation with London’s population growth. The growth in traffic is mainly attributed to commercial vehicles (vans and lorries) reflecting London’s economy growth and popularity of home deliveries etc etc. As a comparison there are parts of the UK where the population and economy have not grown and the traffic volumes have also been at similar levels. There is a direct correlation between them.

There is a viable and sustainable solution to traffic problems, which does not involve planters and angering the local community. Investment of money in infrastructure and technologies linked to smarter cities concepts are a tested and proven example. Also, in just a few years Ultra Low Emission Electric Vehicles (ULEVs), along with expanding 20mph speed limits across London will revolutionise travel, the environment and safety for ALL. The ULEVs with almost zero pollution from their dynamo engines will reduce pollution as they replace older combustion engines. This environmental benefit is great news for all in the community, but potentially bad news for others like maybe yourself. A few people on this forum are banging on about the useless and universally failed Low Traffic Schemes like LTN’s. Unlike ULEVs, the LTN schemes have not been proven to work and do not benefit the wider community, economy or environment. They are instead been used as an effective back-door scheme for a minority of residents in wealthy streets to bypass planning and consultation rules to get their very own private roads at the expense of the wider community. In effect we are creating exclusive private NIMBY enclaves like the Lakes estate. It’s a scheme that benefits very few people (and probably their house values) but disadvantages many many more people in surrounding roads with extra pollution, noise and traffic that they don’t want. Thinly veiled insults are given to the surrounding community by falsely claiming “traffic will evaporate” or “habits will change” which people know are not true, and are wearing thin. It’s very divisive as communities do not like anything that is unfair or unjust and solely introduced for the benefit of just a few people.

We are getting bored and tired of this divisive LTN scheme which is Unproven and most definitely Unfair and Unjust. It’s had its day in the sun and we need to move on to something else that actually will work….

I reckon it's pretty divisive asking your neighbours to move away, but anyway, the traffic problem is just as bad, if not worse, outside the M25 - with roads clogged with vehicles and dreadful walking and cycling infrastructure (and very poor public transport). Of course low traffic neighbourhoods are for all - in fact many Council estates are low traffic neighbourhoods - don't forget it's the poorest who don't have a car. Finally, the only solution to traffic problems is less traffic - and low traffic neighbourhoods encourage people to switch modes for short journeys.

Thats the theory but it doesn't work. It only works to create private and car free roads fo a few residence and pass the traffic onto poorer neighbours on surrounding roads. Its a great scheme fo some and a disaster for many. Its Unfair, Unproven and Unpopular. To prove the point over 5,000 people in this community have signed a petition against the LTN scheme and only 240 or so for the scheme. That gives it a 95% rejection rate. You are not going to claim that 95% of the community who do not want this scheme do not care about the environment or do not understand. 95% of this community cannot see the benefits of this scheme because there is none for the vast majority of people as they see it as unfair and Unjust and are rightly angered by it.

Please can you share the evidence showing ltns don't work (you can find Rachel Aldred's work showing they do earlier in this thread)? I'm an avid supporter of ltns and I wouldn't waste my time signing a petition. Last week's YouGov survey (which I trust more than a random petition) found only 16% of population oppose ltns - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2020/oct/22/despite-a-loud-opposing-minority-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-are-increasingly-popular

We need many more ltns in Enfield so all can benefit from not living in a high traffic neighbourhood.

LB Wandsworth, LB Lewisham and LB Redbridge all cancelled their LTN schemes within a short period after starting. LB Ealing and LB Hackney are hanging by a thread and may be cancelled soon. The local petitions across all the UK for and against the scheme cannot be dismissed as it is a more accurate reflection of the community where we live and we can see and experience for ourselves when signing the petition for or against the scheme. 95% of the community do not agree with the Fox lane / Lakes estate LTN and are against it. That is pretty compelling rejection of the scheme in anyones books. The LTN scheme is Unproven, Unjust, Unfair and very very Unpopular in this community.

It’s worth correcting the many references to the LTN falling into a trap of referring to it as the Lakes Estate. There are at least four relatively distinct community areas within the Fox Lane LTN:
• The Leigh Hunt Drive estate – a LTN from inception
• Meadway (Conservation Area) Estate - easiest thought of as the Southgate Circus by-pass
• Lakes (Conservation Area) Estate – easiest thought of as the Green Lanes by-pass
• A set of east / west roads spanning the centre and focused on The Mall / Selbourne and Amberley / St Georges – taken as a major east / west through route.
With the exception of the former, many have argued that these communities have suffered by their position as major thorough routes.
In response to Tom Smiths postings to help clarify:
• What is the community you refer to as suffering / being killed? (#5703)
• What is the issue you say is not solved by the LTN? (#5708)
• What does the 95% rejection rate refer to? (#5703)