Low traffic neighbourhoods: Sunak orders review

[Purple Train]

As if we wanted more proof that our current government is about as green as a factory chimney and led by a Prime Minister who doesn't want to rub shoulders with the grotty middle-classes-and-lower...

Sunak orders review of low traffic neighbourhoods in pro-motorist message

Speaking to the Sunday Telegraph, the prime minister says he wants to support people to use their cars.

www.bbc.co.uk

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has ordered a review of low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) in England, saying that he is on the side of drivers.
He told the Sunday Telegraph he was supporting people to "use their cars to do all the things that matter to them".
His remarks form part of a sharpening debate on green policies following last week's by-elections.
LTNs aim to reduce traffic, in part by preventing drivers using quieter residential roads as through-routes.
Some research suggests they reduce localised pollution. But critics, including some Conservatives MPs, argue they harm the freedom of motorists and push traffic onto other roads, causing congestion.

Are LTNs a good thing? Is Sunak's intervention welcome?

 

[johncrossley]

If they are as unpopular as Sunak thinks, then the councillors responsible will find out at the next election. Those councillors, of course, are typically responding to demands for a LTN from their residents.

 

[PGAT]

Every time I see "freedom" and "motorists" in the same sentence I want to rip my eyes out..

 

[renegademaster]

Not strictly a LTN, but Croydon have really messed up the traffic flow, especially for busses , in the southern half of Central Croydon with one way road closures to fit in cycle lanes. This is despite the Tory mayor weve had for the past year.

If they are as unpopular as Sunak thinks, then the councillors responsible will find out at the next election. Those councillors, of course, are typically responding to demands for a LTN from their residents.

Tower Hamlets Labour lost to a local party candidate with opposing LTNs as part of his plaform. I suspect LTNs are popular for the residents of the newly insituted cul-de-sacs, but less for the other residents of the borough, whose roads the through traffic get redirected too. Long time ago , cul-de-sacs used to faux-paus in urban planning.

 

[johncrossley]

Long time ago , cul-de-sacs used to faux-paus in urban planning.

Because they made cycling and walking trips much longer. LTNs make cycling and walking more attractive. The most praised new town in the world is almost exclusively made of cul-de-sacs.

 

[renegademaster]

Because they made cycling and walking trips much longer. LTNs make cycling and walking more attractive. The most praised new town in the world is almost exclusively made of cul-de-sacs.

Whether they actually have a real life net benefit depends on whether they actually get people off their asses and on to bikes, or just turns a 5 min journey into a 15 minute one, which most drivers will tolerate, if not without a little moaning.

 

[nw1]

Seems worryingly short-termist when they make for quieter residential roads, and as other posters have said, safer walking and cycling routes.

I am finding it very difficult to identify anything whatsoever I agree with Sunak about.

Much as I disliked him, I had more common ground with Boris Johnson.

Sunak is self-evidently targeting a particular section of the electorate and ignoring everyone else.

If there is a green agenda he is blissfully unaware of it.

 

[PGAT]

Whether they actually have a real life net benefit depends on whether they actually get people off their asses and on to bikes, or just turns a 5 min journey into a 15 minute one, which most drivers will tolerate, if not without a little moaning.

Either way, there's still less pollution, it's quieter and safer.

 

[renegademaster]

Either way, there's still less pollution, it's quieter and safer.

If its the turning 5 minute journeys into 15 minutes journeys situation, it's marginally less pollution for the cul-de-saced roads, but instead just shifted onto arterial roads instead(and possible knock on effects from that on more long distance traffic , including busses)

 

[nw1]

Because they made cycling and walking trips much longer. LTNs make cycling and walking more attractive. The most praised new town in the world is almost exclusively made of cul-de-sacs.

Cul-de-sacs aren't necessarily bad for walking and cycling as long as there are link paths from the end of the cul-de-sacs.

I find this varies depending on the area. Some areas are very good, some areas (typically older) are very bad. Close to me there are a load of cul-de-sacs which have zero footpaths linking them (probably inter-war housing) but estates built in the 80s or 90s tend to be very good for these links.

 

[renegademaster]

Cul-de-sacs aren't necessarily bad for walking and cycling as long as there are link paths from the end of the cul-de-sacs.

I find this varies depending on the area. Some areas are very good, some areas (typically older) are very bad. Close to me there are a load of cul-de-sacs which have zero footpaths linking them (probably inter-war housing) but estates built in the 80s or 90s tend to be very good for these links.

Even if their is walking facilities, whether enough people actually use them to make a benefit over the disadvantage of having cars do longer journeys is a different question.

 

[PGAT]

If its the turning 5 minute journeys into 15 minutes journeys situation, it's marginally less pollution for the cul-de-saced roads, but instead just shifted onto arterial roads instead(and possible knock on effects from that on more long distance traffic , including busses)

In practice, in the long term, ridership WILL decrease if people have to spend longer waiting in traffic. That's the law of induced demand

 

[341o2]

Because they made cycling and walking trips much longer. LTNs make cycling and walking more attractive. The most praised new town in the world is almost exclusively made of cul-de-sacs.

How do LTNs make walking more attractive?

 

[PGAT]

How do LTNs make walking more attractive?

They restrict access for motor vehicles, which allows more space for pedestrians and cyclists and makes them safer

 

[Falcon1200]

Is there any evidence that LTNs actually reduce total car traffic mileage? Or do they simply force cars away from the roads so designated onto other routes, which is great for those living on an LTN road but not so good for other people; Such as my parents, whose house when they bought it (1964!) was on a quiet dead end but is now on a busy through route which will never, ever become part of an LTN, and if other roads are closed off, will become even busier (and it's a nightmare just now).

They restrict access for motor vehicles, which allows more space for pedestrians and cyclists and makes them safer

Except that if those motor vehicles find different routes, rather than being abandoned altogether, pedestrians, cyclists and residents elsewhere are disadvantaged.

 

[AndrewE]

Is there any evidence that LTNs actually reduce total car traffic mileage?

You could try reading https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...urhoods-ltn-may-lead-people-drive-less-london - and lots of other more recent reporting.

Or do they simply force cars away from the roads so designated onto other routes, which is great for those living on an LTN road but not so good for other people; Such as my parents, whose house when they bought it (1964!) was on a quiet dead end but is now on a busy through route which will never, ever become part of an LTN, and if other roads are closed off, will become even busier (and it's a nightmare just now).

Except that if those motor vehicles find different routes, rather than being abandoned altogether, pedestrians, cyclists and residents elsewhere are disadvantaged.

Try reading the research (as reported by organs other than the Telegraph, Daily Mail and Express) and you will learn that there are almost no disbenefits. Aren't you concerned by the reports of deaths from lung and heart disease attributed to traffic pollution?
p.s for a comment on public acceptance/spineless politicians giving in to loud-mouthed vested interests you could start with this: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlto...g-shows-overwhelming-public-support-for-ltns/

If the latest polling is correct, politicians who believe it’s a vote winner to be opposed to England’s low traffic neighborhoods (LTNs) might want to think again.
In London, a new poll has found that 58% of respondents support the introduction of LTNs, while only 17% oppose blocking residential streets to rat-running motorists.
Support for LTNs has been consistently high in most polling on LTNs since their introduction by the Tory government in 2020...
A 2021 Kantar survey commissioned by the Department of Transport found that 61% of respondents supported LTNs, with 29% opposed.

 

[bramling]

As if we wanted more proof that our current government is about as green as a factory chimney and led by a Prime Minister who doesn't want to rub shoulders with the grotty middle-classes-and-lower...

Sunak orders review of low traffic neighbourhoods in pro-motorist message

Speaking to the Sunday Telegraph, the prime minister says he wants to support people to use their cars.

www.bbc.co.uk

Are LTNs a good thing? Is Sunak's intervention welcome?

The difficulty is that people want *their* neighbourhood to be low traffic, but expect to drive elsewhere. So the concept doesn’t really work.

The only thing I really support is therefore sorting out particularly bad rat-runs, which has generally always happened anyway.

 

[cactustwirly]

They restrict access for motor vehicles, which allows more space for pedestrians and cyclists and makes them safer

How does that work?
There is already such a thing, which separates pedestrians and motor vehicles called a pavement...
There are also dedicated cycle lanes

 

[rapmastaj]

You could try reading https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...urhoods-ltn-may-lead-people-drive-less-london - and lots of other more recent reporting.

Yes, to be clear, this study shows that creating LTNs leads to residents driving less.

Traffic within LTNs decreases and traffic on roads just outside LTNs does not increase.

The inner city area where I live in Leeds is basically an LTN by default simply because the roads don't go anywhere useful. Kids who live in the back-to-back terraces play on the street, and nobody would ever consider it a good idea to try to build a new traffic through-route here.

 

[AndrewE]

How does that work?
There is already such a thing, which separates pedestrians and motor vehicles called a pavement...
There are also dedicated cycle lanes

except that they don't work. An alarming number of "road deaths" are actually pedestrians on the pavement.
And I have been nearly wiped out by a big car which decided to use my bike lane as a quick way to overtake another vehicle waiting to turn right. He was quite offended that I thought I should be able to cycle along it unobstructed. If I had been less frightened and quicker off the mark I should have taken his number.

 

[PGAT]

How does that work?
There is already such a thing, which separates pedestrians and motor vehicles called a pavement...

But pedestrians have to cross the road sometimes, which is kind of dangerous when several tons of steel travelling at 30mph is also trying to cross the same area

There are also dedicated cycle lanes

There are very few places (especially in neighbourhoods) where bike lanes exist.

 

[biko]

Are LTNs a good thing? Is Sunak's intervention welcome?

Yes; and depends on the quality of the review. If the review is objective, it will show LTNs work and that might help stopping the discussion.

Is there any evidence that LTNs actually reduce total car traffic mileage?

Yes, generally traffic does not increase on other roads to the same extent as the reduction. The reason is mostly that the alternative route is close to capacity and therefore a less attractive option than not going at all, or using other modes. A number of scientific studies have been done to LTNs in the UK specifically, but also more than enough evidence exists from the Netherlands. Over here, LTNs are very normal and are a very common proposal by councils.

Or do they simply force cars away from the roads so designated onto other routes, which is great for those living on an LTN road but not so good for other people

That is a risk, but studies from London showed that generally this problem isn't very big.

 

[bramling]

except that they don't work. An alarming number of "road deaths" are actually pedestrians on the pavement.
And I have been nearly wiped out by a big car which decided to use my bike lane as a quick way to overtake another vehicle waiting to turn right. He was quite offended that I thought I should be able to cycle along it unobstructed. If I had been less frightened and quicker off the mark I should have taken his number.

Have to say I get thoroughly sick of not even being able to escape cars when walking on a pavement. However this is more down to atrocious standards of driving than the design of road layouts.

I cringe when people on here say that if one thinks things are bad here then one hasn’t experienced what standards are like abroad. That’s a pretty depressing prospect.

 

[AndrewE]

and now, when you thought it couldn't get any worse: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...h-speed-limit-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-ltns

Ministers consider curbs on councils’ use of 20mph speed limits​

Exclusive: moves against what PM terms ‘anti-motorist’ policies follow order of review into low-traffic neighbourhoods

Hopefully they have now shot themselves in the other foot...
(I suppose a "study" is one way of appeasing the regressives while not doing anything immediately. And if the study reports honestly before the next general election it might also be a way for the PM to justify keeping the status quo.) Sadly, though, it means any progress is now put on hold...

 

[geoffk]

Rishi Sunak is standing up for motorists, making the most of Labour's apparent backtracking after Uxbridge! It appears that ULEZ and LTNs will be the next culture war. Although the two are different and have different aims, they are easily conflated in the eyes of the voter as anti-motorist. Everyone, it seems, cares about saving the planet as long as they are not personally inconvenienced or out of pocket. Trouble is politicians have short-term aims to fit election cycles. I'll see what happens now to the LTN about to go in near me in Exeter.

 

[renegademaster]

If a LTN advocating resident still has a car themselves, it's just standard selfish nimbyism that makes up most suburban politics , rather than genuine environmental concern

 

[ZL exile]

How does that work?
There is already such a thing, which separates pedestrians and motor vehicles called a pavement...
There are also dedicated cycle lanes

But unfortunately most local authorities don’t have the powers to stop the large amount of inconsiderate motorists who believe that cycle lanes and pavements are just there to be used to park their polluting contraptions on.
i have a car, but prefer to walk or cycle for local journeys and days out if possible.

 

[johncrossley]

Over here, LTNs are very normal and are a very common proposal by councils.

So not controversial?

 

[Falcon1200]

You could try reading https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...urhoods-ltn-may-lead-people-drive-less-london

So I did try reading the article in your link, and noted that it contains the words 'may', 'seemingly' and 'could', in relation to a reduction in vehicle mileage thanks to LTNs. I also noted that it is based on a study of precisely 4 LTNs. I did not see however any consideration of other factors having an impact on traffic, such as Working From Home.

Aren't you concerned by the reports of deaths from lung and heart disease attributed to traffic pollution?

You could try (re)reading my Post #15, in which I stated; my parents, whose house when they bought it (1964!) was on a quiet dead end but is now on a busy through route which will never, ever become part of an LTN, and if other roads are closed off, will become even busier (and it's a nightmare just now).

So yes, I am very concerned about the health effects of traffic pollution, but on all residents, not just those fortunate enough to live in an LTN.

The difficulty is that people want *their* neighbourhood to be low traffic, but expect to drive elsewhere. So the concept doesn’t really work.

Indeed, and I wonder how many LTN residents have, as a result of its introduction, given up their cars completely and now rely entirely on public transport and active travel. I do not recall any mention of that in the Guardian article.

 

[bramling]

Indeed, and I wonder how many LTN residents have, as a result of its introduction, given up their cars completely and now rely entirely on public transport and active travel. I do not recall any mention of that in the Guardian article.

And, furthermore, one presumes such residents never have any goods or services provided to them by road vehicles, either directly or indirectly. One assumes they never have any tradesman come to visit, nor any deliveries?!).