Modal filtering

Posted on
Page
of 5
  • PDF on the expansion discussions :-

    https://mcusercontent.com/85e04a97b8743a­e33c56e8490/files/a18047f1-cd11-4faf-9d4­f-0bcc495d767c/TCPR_West_Residents_brief­ing_170221.pdf

    It is a massive area and the plans would cut off free access to the Hurlingham Club, where membership harder to get than a steel Rolex.

  • Thanks for the update on lbhf. Hope it goes well.

    Yet another appalling presentation - falsely saying main roads are like rivers. Car traffic is not a force of nature, it is a product of human choices - it would be useful for assistant directors in LBHF to recognise this fundamental point.

  • Thats an incredible map thanks for sharing.

    I think it's this report by rachel aldred that debunks the perceived issues about demographics and LTNs:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/­2020/nov/16/claim-low-traffic-schemes-on­ly-benefit-better-off-debunked-in-new-st­udy

  • It's been handled very badly from the start. There is a theory that the whole thing only gained traction because developers at the gas works wanted Harwood Terrace closed. It's not impossible considering timing and the roll out. If it ends up covering the area proposed it will be huge.

  • Posted this on the TFL cycle plans thread, but this is the better place:

    Southwark Council have opened a consultation on the Dulwich streetspace scheme, so if you've been through there then please share your opinions

    https://www.southwark.gov.uk/transport-a­nd-roads/improving-our-streets/live-proj­ects/dulwich-review

  • Yup, that presentation has some very questionable bits (thanks for sharing it @Airhead). The point about a main road being like a river that bursts its banks when there's too much traffic neglects to mention that the water in the adjacent, flooded fields can't actually go anywhere until the height of the main river itself drops so that the floodwater in the fields it can rejoin. Allowing traffic into the adjacent streets is therefore doomed as a policy, since it will just back up there as a result of the next pinch point.

    That said, I realise that what they're trying to do with TCPR is to keep through traffic on the main roads. Having cycled, driven and walked that area I think it will definitely benefit from eliminating that corner-cutting and be much more pleasant as a result. However, TCPR seems like a half-arsed solution, since it doesn't do anything to deter a major source of traffic i.e., ridiculous short journeys being made by car. What's said about LTN's is really questionable (my notes in bold):

    • LTN’s have various forms but they focus on modal shift of transport usage by making it more difficult for all vehicles (apart from the vehicles that we actually want people to use i.e., cycles). These include road closures, cycle lanes, school streets and pedestrianisation.
    • Blunt instrument for tackling rat running alone, more affective at reducing total traffic including local. (This is implies that local traffic is not a problem, but it is. Our transport policy has to be joined-up to make these changes have the desired effect and giving local residents the option of effectively vetoing the changes having any effect on them undermines that.)
    • Very High impact on emergency vehicles, public transport and local activity (This is just questionable all round, LTNs don't block public transport unless you build them across a bus route, and the evidence for the impact on emergency vehicles is shaky and very possibly offset by health benefits of greater activity and the greater safety of having more people travelling actively on the street)
    • Re‐distributes vehicle capacity to other transport modes (well yes, that's sort of the point)

  • I was on a call last night discussing the Bruce Grove LTN. Haringey seem to be pretty much on board at the moment (which is surprising) and they've come up with a few decent proposals. Next stage will be to finalise a proposal and open it up to the public which I suspect is where pushback may occur (feedback has been generally positive so far).


    5 Attachments

    • Screenshot 2021-05-27 183122.jpg
    • Screenshot 2021-05-27 183800.jpg
    • Screenshot 2021-05-27 183842.jpg
    • Screenshot 2021-05-27 183954.jpg
    • Screenshot 2021-05-27 183227.jpg
  • This is the sort of shit that is getting circulated round our way on a regular basis:

    Stop The Road Closures March & Petition to Open Up Our Streets

    With the increase in crime, anti social behaviour, drug dealing &
    taking in our area; the restricted access for emergency services
    (police have informed residents they have cut down patrols due to road
    closures & ambulances have reported several delays to critical patient
    attendance.) The long detours disabled & vulnerable residents &
    children are having to make to access GPs, hospital & the SEND bus.
    The affect on small businesses in the area not only along Columbia Rd
    but Old Bethnal Green Rd too, the erratic rubbish collection as the
    refuse vehicles cannot safely access roads such as Quilter Street as
    well as the manufactured congestion these road blocks are causing on
    Hackney Rd & Bethnal Green Rd which now at most times of the day are
    static 'car parks' of idling traffic.

    Its time to say ENOUGH!

    Liveable Streets scheme is a HUGE failure. Our streets must be
    re-opened and the scheme suspended, as the Fire Brigade said in an
    email, "in the event someone dies." The police have said "our access
    into and through the area is severely restricted and would affect the
    response to any incident be it Police, Fire, or Ambulance.” Very
    worrying as every Sunday the Columbia Road Flower Market is high on
    the potential terror target list!

    Please sign and share this petition (if you live, work or study in the
    area):

    https://democracy.towerhamlets.gov.uk/mg­EPetitionDisplay.aspx?id=157&fbclid=IwAR­0ssj8Ob2TJ6XheVJ0ZruFWOIpMcOo_t6GUhunh0e­8NuiJULQ-NwE1xupw

    And join the crowds from Hackney, Islington & Tower Hamlets this
    Saturday 26th June marching to demand councils 'Stop The Road
    Closures' If you can't or are unable to join the demo at the beginning
    then local Bethnal Green residents can meet in Ion Square at 1.30pm to
    join the march as it makes it way down Hackney Rd.

    Let's tell Tower Hamlets Council Liveable Streets is' Not Working, Not
    Green, Not Wanted!'

  • Well, that's democracy for you, people are entitled to have their say. Past experience in London probably makes it safe to assume that people who hold these views are in the minority, but they have every right to have their say. Once it's in the political bloodstream, which it partly is by suddenly being imposed without consultation, you have to let it go through the political process. My own preference would be properly-run engagement exercises that front-load involvement by local people.

    Much of this is trying to find arguments, and I wouldn't assume for one second that some people aren't genuinely worried about access for the emergency services or people with mobility difficulties. As I've said elsewhere, on the face of it the practice of filtering is absurd and only brought on by the abuse of urban streets for purposes for which they are not designed, and some people see first that absurdity without understanding the background.

    I certainly didn't know that Columbia Road Flower Market was high on the potential terror target list, though. Let's keep a close watch on whether it ever moves on to the actual terror target list.

  • I certainly didn't know that Columbia Road Flower Market was high on the potential terror target list, though. Let's keep a close watch on whether it ever moves on to the actual terror target list.

    😂

  • Lewisham is consulting on Lewisham and Lee Green LTN: https://lewisham.gov.uk/ltnconsultation

  • As posted by @aggi in the TfL thread:

    https://www.haringey.gov.uk/parking-road­s-and-travel/travel/transport-strategy/l­ow-traffic-neighbourhoods-haringey/low-t­raffic-neighbourhoods-public-consultatio­n

    I'm afraid these are all about as bad as attempts at filtering can ever get. Firstly, in well-filtered areas you don't need one-way streets. Yes, even if streets with a line of car-parking on each side only allow one functional vehicle lane between them. There are very few exceptions to that rule. In fact, one of the main justifications for filtering is that it enables removal of one-way streets, but here (especially in Bruce Grove West) they're leaving them all in, probably to not get people worried about damage to their parked cars. Most proposed filters are in completely the wrong places, e.g. the 'Enfield trial filters' in Bounds Green Area A, which are on the borough boundary, where they most assuredly shouldn't be.

    I'm obviously aware that the borough operates under constraints, but this is not a good way to filter, especially if you're going to impose them as schemes out for consultation like this.

  • Share away, the more views the better.

    I think the majority are existing one way streets. Those roads are a bit narrower than average but for most streets in the area you couldn't have two cars passing each other without a gap in the parked cars. I'm not sure how congested the parking is round there, streetview doesn't seem to show it as any worse than other places nearby so I'm not sure of the basis of keeping them in.

  • As I said, you don't have to worry about drivers going in opposite directions in filtered areas if you do it right. If you end up with one street that's the principal way in, you can create a couple of passing spaces. Either way it'll work. The reason why drivers get into fisticuffs that eventually lead to one-way streets being adopted is because they're in a hurry to get somewhere while treating the street or area as a way to that somewhere else, not as a destination. If it's just people going a couple of dozen metres into a filtered cell, all that urgency dissipates and people will happily reverse a bit in the rare cases when conflict will occur.

  • I don’t think removing existing one-way streets is something any council will do - if you add extra changes in a scheme you’re just volunteering for more grief and more battles to fight.

    tbh Given a couple of years ago Haringey did a big exercise on possible LTNs and came to the conclusion that filtering traffic inconvenienced motorists so shrug let’s do nothing, I’m really glad they’re pushing ahead, whatever the details.

  • The street I live in is only wide enough for 1 car. It's been navigable as a 2 way street for the 20 years I've lived here and the 20 before where parking on both sides was even a thing. My neighbour lived here in the 70's and he was one of only 3 car owners.

  • I don’t think removing existing one-way streets is something any council will do

    As it happens, I've been involved in returning plenty to two-way. It does get done, yes.

    if you add extra changes in a scheme you’re just volunteering for more grief and more battles to fight.

    It really depends on how you approach it. If you just impose it top-down, perhaps. If you have a proper engagement process (which is possible), you can have a proper integrated scheme.

    tbh Given a couple of years ago Haringey did a big exercise on possible LTNs and came to the conclusion that filtering traffic inconvenienced motorists so shrug let’s do nothing, I’m really glad they’re pushing ahead, whatever the details.

    I remain convinced that these changes shouldn't just be pushed down like they are at the moment. The vast majority of filtering schemes currently being done are simply terrible, quite a few have been removed again or weren't implemented in the first place, and there are numerous other problems. Trust me, it's really not as easy as saying 'something must be done, whatever the details'.

  • The street I live in is only wide enough for 1 car.

    Do you mean between two lines of parked cars? I can't quite tell what you're saying here:

    It's been navigable as a 2 way street for the 20 years I've lived here and the 20 before where parking on both sides was even a thing. My neighbour lived here in the 70's and he was one of only 3 car owners.

  • Which ones have been removed because the details of the filters were bad rather than the lack of political commitment to seeing any scheme through?

  • It has cars parked on either side and the distance between them is not wide enough for 2 cars to pass but it's 2 way. Any clearer?

    I was giving an example of streets where people have to figure out how to pass each other being sustainable over the long term.

  • has cars parked on either side and the distance between them is not wide enough for 2 cars to pass but it's 2 way

    Cars are such a dumb ass fucking disaster for cities

  • I wasn't trying to make that point. My point was that I don't think filtering should be imposed top-down. As for removal because of detail or politics, it's not always that clear-cut.

    We had a case in Blackheath (which I think was further up in this thread, or if elsewhere will be easily findable) where the council tried to place a filter in what was clearly the wrong place. It kept getting removed by (presumably) locals and eventually the council gave in and didn't keep replacing it. Here, I would say the locals had a point that wasn't just anti-filtering or anti-council and the council had done shoddy work and was right to back down.

    Remember also that the people doing the actual work of implementation are not politicians. They're technical people, and as in every profession, some are better, some are worse at their jobs. If you're a politician whose officers get filtering wrong, you might end up defending a very poor scheme, probably against very reasonable arguments, if you desperately want to stick it out and show political 'commitment'. (Most politicians don't understand the technical details in any case, which is fine, because they're generalists who have to deal with all sorts of things, like political GPs.)

    I've seen plenty of schemes run into problems, often against prior warnings that weren't heeded. Not so much in my own borough, but certainly in others. Completely irrespective of the politics of it, councils should propose and implement good schemes as a very basic requirement. Imposing them in the way they have been doing only makes this harder.

  • Thanks, that's what I thought you meant! Yes, that's an example of what I was talking about further up.

  • I remain convinced that these changes shouldn't just be pushed down like they are at the moment.

    How do you think they should be implemented? This is the third stage of consultation on this scheme I think. I'm not sure how else they could be implemented.

  • In fact, one of the main justifications for filtering is that it enables removal of one-way streets,

    I'm reading the thread and I can't find the reason one way streets are a bad thing?

    I've just bought a flat on a one way street and it's nice and quiet

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview
About

Modal filtering

Posted by Avatar for Oliver Schick @Oliver Schick

Actions