Forum Topic

Independent Report into Low Traffic Neighbourhood Scheme

I'm not going to second guess a qualified civil engineer and I don't know the streets covered by R Witt's report intimately but I would say that his or her conclusions were entirely predictable. It is the stated aim of these schemes to push traffic out of residential areas onto roads which take through traffic. You can't do this other than by forcing people to drive further so traffic miles necessarily have to increase. I'm not for one minute saying the meticulously put together report isn't useful. It quantifies the current situation and gives a benchmark by which the success of any scheme can be judged something which the council have studiously avoided doing. We will now be able to tell using these projections just how much through traffic has been discouraged and how many people have switched to cycling and walking. If this is significant then the scheme has to be accepted as a success. If not then Ealing Council must concede that all they have done is generate extra traffic. The roads onto which cars have been displaced still contain a significant proportion of residential property so all they have really done is shifted traffic away from properties that are relatively higher in price and reinforced the price differential between roads that benefit from LTNs and those that don't.

Gordon Southwell ● 1722d44 Comments

How is all this affecting the regular services now that the blockades such as those on Haslemere/Clitherow Avenues have been replaced with a more solid blockades bolted to the road surface?How are the Recycling and binmen, Delivery drivers, Milkmen, etc coping?I know now we'll not be using Northfield Avenue shops, as even though I live in Northfields ward as it means diverting past all the shops in Hanwell and W Ealing, or diverting via Brentford and getting stuck in the resultant clogged up junction of Swyncombe and Windmill Road.People are already refusing to meet in eateries and bars on Northfields Avenue anymore as they cannot get home from there without a very long divert through Hanwell or Brentford.Did nobody behind this "scheme" not realise or foresee it would come to this?Are all Labour councillors that inept that they did not see a problem that everyone else can?

Leslie Bailey ● 1703d

You just said it. The streets are quiet and peaceful. Most have speed humps and the 20mph limit is pretty well observed.A few decades ago most of the South ealing and Northfields area was far busier.it was a haven for commuter parking due to the Zone System making Northfields and South Ealing much cheaper to commute from.Far more local traffic as the pre Bus Plus services made local bus travel wholly unreliable.There were large vehicles using the link roads all the time and regular blockages.Parked cars were smaller then and much larger cars have actually created a form of traffic calming by accident as they have reduced road widths making HGVs unable to rat run and certainly not at the speeds they used to.So all this Rat Running and driving around claimed is by Whom?Most likely is is local traffic by local residents and no-one drives around for the hell of it.This will increase vehicular movements in streets not ever intend for through traffic.That compromises safety for all.We now have moped users diverting to the pavements in Junction Road as the gaps are too narrow and cyclists colliding using the wrong gaps in the wrong directions.How is that an improvement ?

Raymond Havelock ● 1709d

The residential streets between Northfields and Boston Manor are quiet and peaceful. Reclaiming those residential areas for the residents is a good thing. Wasn't this meant to be one of the better things to come out of CV-19? I'm sure their residents would like more things like Play Streets rather than people flying down the road at dead-on 20mph as a short cut. Yes, it moves traffic to already busy streets, and that would be unavoidable. However, the leaflet kept discussing Ealing's 'anti-car' agenda and concerns about house prices so I suspect that's the real issue.

Kevin Wilson ● 1709d

Well, thank you for being so selfish and displacing the traffic from your road onto already busy streets. I hope, just for once, that the 'NIMBY' succeeds.

N V Brooks ● 1710d

Some NIMBY circulated leaflets around Northfields, outlining the LTN plans around here in great detail. I really need to thank Mr or Mrs NIMBY as their eloquent opposition has actually convinced me that the plans are a very good idea. As someone whose road will be positively affected, I look forward to its introduction.

Kevin Wilson ● 1710d

Unbelievably dangerous for Cyclists, Any motor cyclists and cars and vans.It is incredible that an authority that will make a mountain out of a minor safety issue can be so casual about putting lives at risk on so many levels.The planters are too close together to Cycle freely. They have completely blind views for children cycling and unfortunately there are a lot of Daft Cycling parents who are taking tiny tots out on the roads on bikes who simply cannot be seen by even pedestrians crossing the road.The rights of way are now completely removed so who is supposed to give way to who and again the view from either direction is obscured. In the dark it is completely lethal.None of the other roads off Junction road have any passing points as they are all single track.Junction road ( and there is a clue for the clueless ) has several junctions and thus  several passing points for emergency vehicles and large vehicles.Quite who is responsible for such stupid and dangerous design and implementation will have to accept their culpability if someone gets killed or maimed.

Raymond Havelock ● 1710d

Of course not. Neither did they do the baseline data gathering that would prove whether or not the LTNs actually reduce traffic. Without the baseline, they will simply have to guess (or. to put it another way, LIE)  about the results.

N V Brooks ● 1710d

Did LBE do a proper Pedestrian and Vehicle Movement Risk Assessment to HSE guidelines?  I don't think that they had the time to do one.

Fred Hunt ● 1710d

It turns out that the fire brigade CAN’T traverse most of the blockades because the gap is too narrow.* Fire engines and ambulances will now have to take lengthy diversionary routes to get to incidents. Unfortunately, the fire brigade had absolutely no say in this schemes – they've just had to work around what Ealing Council wants.This scheme is a potential killer.*even with the bollard removed – most of the blockades are diagonal, reducing the effective width of the opening, even if the fire engine/ambulance is driven onto the pavement.

David Marshall ● 1710d

It does make you wonder how the emergency services will cope when they need to traverse three or four of this on a 999 emergency.

Leslie Bailey ● 1710d

Who are equally rather poor at project management and efficient use of funds over quality and results.

Raymond Havelock ● 1713d

Issues with project bloat and cost overruns are not unique to TfL and, in a national context, they have done better than most in delivering upgrades when funding was available.Whatever their past inadequacies they are not in control of what is happening in the capital at the moment and, to all intents and purposes, London's network is being managed by the Department for Transport.

Andy Jones ● 1713d

It's all switched off. Never happens on email or letters.Baffles me completely as it's words that get changed and often the spelling mistakes of my own are unchanged!

Raymond Havelock ● 1713d

Just a quick point, there is no predictive text on an individual site, any problems like this are down to the device that you are using.

N V Brooks ● 1714d

And I wish this site would fix it's predictive text which keeps changing entire words after reading it back and when posting.

Raymond Havelock ● 1714d

The problem with both TfL and Authorities is that everything has to be seen as an initiative or big project and everything ends up costing a fortune.  Would you pay £7.50 for a Bag of Chips?  No. Probably baulk at £2.50.But for some reason Councils and Institutions do and often get the last nights reheats to boot. Always inferior end results.Transport has cost way more than it ought and is becoming increasingly inferior to what is developing in both comparable and countries of lesser means.Too many cooks and bull***%$s in the Political and administration parts of the whole transport industry.Locally bad pavements and poor road surfacers are a key impediment to walking and cycling. It's never had a good road network but imposing daft schemes into some of the quietest and safety streets in the district which ironicaly do suffer lousy pavements, not so good LED lighting in some bits and fitted bumpy and slippery road surfaces just beggars belief,Fix what needs fixing first but don't fiddle with things that are not broken because it will end up short circuiting everything else.

Raymond Havelock ● 1714d

Financial mismanagement isn't the primary reason for TfL's current difficulties, it is the precipitous fall in revenue. All mass transit networks throughout the world require subsidy and TfL's was relatively small by international standards but that was probably because fares are so high.The government now effectively control TfL so any mismanagement going forward is down to them. The capital city is at the back of the queue for funding and the money being given out for these projects is one of the very few sources of cash for boroughs. Much bigger projects that were due to start have been cancelled.It there is a logic to going above and beyond what the government wants it is possibly to ensure there is sufficient ongoing work for the transport team in the borough. If Ealing was just to say that they thought these schemes were a bad idea they would probably have to lay off a lot of people with important expertise who they would need later on when an element of normality returns.One thing Ealing doesn't appear to be doing, which other boroughs are, is using these schemes to bring in a lot of ANPR cameras which will become major revenue generators. It is extremely unlikely that any scheme which is cash positive for a council will be removed whereas the road barriers which are the main means of imposing the scheme in this borough can be removed quickly and cheaply.

Andy Jones ● 1714d

I didn't / he isn't!

N V Brooks ● 1715d

Politics is absolutely and needlessly destroying Ealing & Acton, beyond recognition, forever.I think this is my sixth or seventh request now, with zero responses so far:-Will anyone who voted Local Labour at the last Council Elections please come on here and justify your vote and explain your reasoning/s? In particular, why you think Cllr Bell may be a competent Leader?I thank you.

Rosco White ● 1715d

So not only will we have TfL bankrupt from it's poor financial management pre covid19 but throwing money away on schemes that may well cost ordinary people dear in their means to a living.It is inept from top to bottom but there is no excuse for Ealing to go along with it .So much does need doing that could make bi mode transport possible but it's not going to happen this way.And all this cost will be going on the Council Tax GLA transept over the next 24 months.People are not stupid and for Ealing and other boroughs to go way beyond their remit shows how much damage politics inflicts on an otherwise great place to live.

Raymond Havelock ● 1715d

Overall this is a Conservative party policy dictated to Ealing Council through the way the funding is being made conditional on certain guidelines being followed.It has been suggested that the policy is being driven by Andrew Gillgan who as Johnson's cycling tzar when he was Mayor was frustrated by the refusal of TfL to adopt many of his schemes. He is now getting his revenge by making TfL pay for schemes they would never have normally approved.The Government has taken a huge amount of funding away from Ealing Council for transport projects and the only way they can get a fraction of it back is by creating these schemes. It has been made clear to them that the bigger, more ambitious and more quickly implemented they are the more likely they are to be funded. The use of Experimental Traffic Orders to create these schemes and hence circumvent the need to consult is a method actively encouraged by the government.There is no doubt that Ealing Council have implemented these schemes in a cack-handed way and failed to communicate well with residents about what is planned. Many of the proposals do appear to be badly thought out.However, this is a result of the way Boris Johnson prefers to govern through his cronies as opposed to established institutions. The rational way to see London through this difficult time in terms of the management of traffic and transport in London would have been to give Transport for London the funds necessary to keep the system operational and plan for a coherent London wide strategy. They won't do that because Sadiq Khan is their enemy and they will use all their power to undermine him.The result is an uncoordinated series of measures across the capital which are likely to lead to logjams on our roads next month but are using up the scarce financial resources available at the moment to approved transport. Ealing Council is only part complicit in this debacle.

Andy Jones ● 1715d

No Leslie they do not. They all, quite rightly support traffic calming but not this sledgehammer approach. The Labour representatives who replaced the excellent conservative councillors in Northfield Ward are, essentially, clueless but will be sacrificed by Bell come election time yet they still show an unswerving loyalty.
The reality of these ludicrous schemes is explained here: https://exposurebox.com/the-coldershaw-midhurst-ltn/?fbclid=IwAR0YXKTBcNRzAOoKqk-vUlJc3HAMVKssDRrHSMlWqNgbTdGkxfLpx-Ji-lk

N V Brooks ● 1716d

No sane person backs these ideas never mind politicians. But they are all insane anyway

Raymond Havelock ● 1716d

So according to the map/petition that came through my door, If someone in Northfields Ward in say Haslemere/Woodstock/Raymond Avenues or Mervyn Road wanted to reach Northfields Surgery or Pharmacy by car/cab, it'll have to be via Boston Road, and either Hanwell Broadway or down to Swyncombe Avenue/Windmill Road? Even then we'd all have to traverse Clitherow Avenue as we won't be able to go straight across at Clitherow/Haslemere Junction.Do any Conservatives back these ideas?

Leslie Bailey ● 1716d

Got it worked third time lucky.  Thanks

Raymond Havelock ● 1716d

Works for me.Right click-new tab.

Terry Freestone ● 1717d

Link does not work

Raymond Havelock ● 1717d

Experimental LTNs in Ealing: Why Can’t the Council Communicate Better?From the Ealing Matters teamhttps://ealingmatters.org.uk/experimental-ltns-in-ealing-why-cant-the-council-communicate-better/

Libby Kemp ● 1717d

My mistake, there is one in Southall on the Southall/Greenford border.  That's it.

N V Brooks ● 1718d

My mistake, there is one in Southall on the Southall/Greenford border.  That's it.

N V Brooks ● 1718d

I live in Enfield Road and have ranted about these schemes on the TW8 Forum.We're about to get our LTN. Amongst other things they're going to block off (diagonally) the crossroads between Junction, Whitestile and Enfield Roads.  Residents of Enfield (and adjoining roads) will not be able to access their homes via the South Ealing Road and side roads but will have to go round via the A4 and Windmill Road or via Little Ealing Lane and Windmill Road.I've just walked down Junction Road and seen people looking in disbelief at what's going on.

Alison Robins ● 1718d

Two.
Says it all really. Bell wouldn't risk his core vote.
The Labour councillors in Northfield, Walpole and Elthorne (I think that they are not expecting to be sacrificed — wise up!) are expendable to enable Bell and his cohort to have another four years on the gravy train.

N V Brooks ● 1718d

They've started installing these on Junction road today, the look of horror on the face of residents says it all. Absolute madness

Jim McCauley ● 1718d

GOOD Question!!!!!  👍

Rosco White ● 1719d

How many of these schemes are in Southall constituency?

Rosa Popham ● 1719d

Perhaps we should be asking cyclists to pay for these changes. They dont pay road tax and most dont have insurance.

Elizabeth Price ● 1719d

The unnecessary reference to 'Stasi' leadership is historically inaccurate and undermines your argument by making it hyperbolic.Many London councils including Conservative ones are adopting this type of scheme. It is the only game in town in terms of funding disbursement at the moment and the criteria are set by central government not Ealing Council.You are right though that some of the more unpopular schemes are in wards which Labour can afford to lose and probably expect to at the next election. You'll probably find that most Low Traffic Neighbourhoods have been located primarily on political rather than traffic grounds. In Hounslow they have been concentrated in Chiswick which tends to vote Tory whereas in Wandsworth they seem to be cropping up in Labour voting wards.

Andy Jones ● 1719d

Drivers do not all have apps.  Just look at how dangerous cyclists and moped riders are with eyes and ears on apps and not on the road?Add a load of unnatural obstacles to the mix and you are asking for trouble.OH and the wonderful scheme in Walthamstow?  Residents do not universally love it and are being refused a consultation on changes and discontinuing much of it.Council refuse to comment on why they are breaking their promise.Bell and Sabiers intend the same.  They also see the loss of Labour seats in Walpole , Northfields and a few other Ealing wards as acceptably insignificant.So I wonder how those rather spineless local councillors who have bowed and scraped to their Stasi leadership are feeling? Probably on a promise.

Raymond Havelock ● 1720d

As far as I am aware the data that underlies most SatNavs has a category for every road. Some of these categories are unsuitable for HGVs and a professional haulage firm would be equipped with data that updates live. It would be a different matter altogether to ask private companies to give misleading information to their customers as you seem to be suggesting.

Gordon Southwell ● 1721d

..or better still, Councils can inform the Apps that certain residential roads are now 'closed' so they no longer get used by as much through traffic, but they don't actually close them so there's no inconvenience to local residents. I think HGV SatNavs work like this, with, for example, the London Lorry Control zone programmed in so trucks avoid residential streets inside the zone even though there's nothing to physically stop them.

Peter Evans ● 1721d

Not sure whether that last comment was meant in jest or not but I think it is a very good point. It would have cost the council nothing to put companies like Waze and Google Maps on notice that their apps were causing problems for residents of the borough.

Gordon Southwell ● 1721d

One thing that has changed is the increased sophisitication of traffic apps which are directing drivers through residential side streets for a margninal saving of time. Perhaps we should be asking Google to pay for these changes.

Andy Jones ● 1722d

When is rat running rat running? If you are a resident of a side street then you will use the distributor street to exit or enter your street. These streets were built to link the main shopping streets and B roads.Are you a rat runner if you live in Airedale Road and park thereabouts when home but drove up Bramley road to get there?Are you a rat runner if you drive up Airdale road to get to Hereford Road?You don't move here without smelling the coffee first.House prices have aways reflected this right from building over 100 years ago.Since the speed humps, much larger cars and latterly the 20mph speed limit these streets are much much quieter and safer than they were when I cycled to College here in the 1980s.What has not changed is the bumps ruts and slippery road surfaces in all these local LTNs which make cycling quite risky in bad weather and in the dark winter months. As bad now as it ever was.

Raymond Havelock ● 1722d

It would be interesting to know how many people exactly raised the issue of rat running through their neighbourhoods during the council's Streetspace consultations (the existence of which passed me by when they were being held). In the absence of anything being published by the council it is probably safe to assume the number of complaints was not many/none.If there is a genuine problem in these areas then an increase of traffic on distributor roads is a price worth paying. However, the concern would be that residents don't really have any issues with through traffic and the council have adopted a scatter gun approach to keep their staff in employment. The rather bizarre way the government has forced TfL to disburse this money gives them little choice.

Andy Jones ● 1722d