| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Paramedics couldn’t get to patient because of covid-bollards | |
| Posted by: | Raymond Havelock | |
| Date/Time: | 05/09/20 20:37:00 |
| This has all come from the London Cycling Campaign and like minded politicians and TFL. It is a complete abuse of taxpayers money by an organisation that is near bankrupt and of democracy. Not only that but loaded surveys were carried out by an anti car organisation funded by TfL and local Councils. They had barely any interest from invitee only local people and the finding justifying this imposition came from in Ealing's case, Just 125 responses out of a district surveyed of 11,000. So far, secrecy shrouds Hounslow's participation in this. But certain councillors pointing the finger at the useless Mr. Shapps, have been in on this since last December. Time to own up. APPENDIX SIX (A): SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE ON LOW TRAFFIC NEIGHBOURHOODS About this guidance Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) form a key part of the Streetspace for London programme. LTNs offer a cost-effective way of delivering safe and attractive streets for walking and cycling by preventing through traffic from using residential neighbourhoods to avoid main roads (often known as ‘rat running’), while retaining local access for residents and visitors. This can be achieved by various approaches to design to limit the movement of motor vehicles on certain streets and improving conditions for walking and cycling. A successful LTN makes walking and cycling more convenient than the car for short trips, while maintaining essential access. It will also enhance the quality of place and reduce local air and noise pollution and road danger. For further information about the potential benefits of LTNs, and what bids for TfL funding should seek to achieve, please refer to the London Streetspace Plan guidance for boroughs. This supplementary guidance sets out: • Recommended approaches to define and locate LTN areas • Guidance on planning LTNs and suggested design features TfL’s Strategic Neighbourhoods Analysis (SNA) – a series of strategic-level spatial analyses to inform the potential suitability of different areas for LTNs and the challenges/opportunities in each – is contained in appendix 6B of the London Streetspace Plan guidance and should be read alongside this document (appendix 6A). Together these two appendices (6A and 6B) replace the former appendix 6 of the London Streetspace Plan guidance for boroughs on LTNs. How to decide on locations for LTNs Decisions about the locations and number of LTNs should be made using a combination of the Strategic Neighbourhoods Analysis below and any local data and knowledge about opportunities, challenges and the potential to be complemented by other projects. LTNs can perform several purposes at once, such as addressing residents’ concerns with through traffic while providing a safe walking and cycling connection. Where LTNs are located will depend on which objectives a borough is prioritising. Identifying potential LTN areas • In general, it can be useful to start by identifying where the key lines of severance are, including roads which will continue to carry higher traffic volumes, railways and rivers (this is also a good opportunity to review how easy it is to cross these severance points by foot/cycle). It may be relevant to also consider non-residential land such as parks and industrial land. • The residential neighbourhoods left in between create potential LTN areas, sometimes referred to as ‘neighbourhood cells.’ The SNA can then be used alongside local knowledge to identify priorities of where to implement LTN schemes first and to determine what specific LTN schemes are trying to achieve. • This approach has been taken at the strategic level for the SNA using the street types framework and assuming that ‘high’ and ‘medium’ movement roads will form the perimeters of neighbourhoods. While this is an appropriate basis for London-wide analysis and a good starting point, there will likely be instances where this does not fully reflect local circumstances so boundaries should be determined at the local level. It also does not reflect where filters may already be in place and very small and large neighbourhoods are excluded to ensure the robustness of the data presented but may still be suitable for filtering. • The SNA overview map provides a broad indication of where LTNs may be most suitable and a starting point for boroughs to explore the potential for LTNs in their area (shown in Figure 1). Neighbourhoods are first given a traffic filtering score based on through traffic, walking and cycling casualties and cycling potential. This is then combined with a general score based on the number of schools, population, low car ownership, social distancing need and levels of deprivation. This provides a broad estimation of the potential for LTNs at the London-wide level, but boroughs should look at the full set of SNA maps in Appendix 6B to build a richer understanding of the challenges and opportunities in their area. The analysis should be treated as a guide rather than a rule, as there will likely be instances where a neighbourhood may not score highly at a strategic level, but has strong case based on local evidence. Figure 1 – The Strategic Neighbourhoods Analysis – overview map Linking to other improvements • Consider the location of LTNs in relation to strategic and local cycling routes to help create a coherent, safe cycling network across as wide an area as possible. In some cases, LTNs can help connect different parts of the cycle network together with routes via low-traffic, filtered streets. In these cases, cycle routes through the LTN should be carefully considered, particularly how these interact with the perimeter roads (e.g. do they line up with the crossing points on these streets). These routes should be clearly signposted within the LTN. • LTNs may also complement town centre road space reallocation schemes to act as walking and cycling routes to town centres and to prevent any increase in through traffic on nearby residential areas. • Consider the location of school streets and LTNs. In some cases, an LTN may substantially reduce traffic levels outside multiple schools (see SNA map in appendix 6B). Considering LTNs within the wider transport network • Consider the potential impacts on the wider road network. Well planned LTNs can lead to traffic reduction, particularly where LTNs cover a wider area or several are implemented together. This is in part because of the reduction in through traffic, and in part due to making it more convenient for residents to travel by foot or cycle for shorter trips than it is to travel by car, shifting some trips to other modes. • It is also important to carefully consider the connectivity of local road layouts when planning LTNs. There may be instances where a proposed LTN does not lead to general traffic displacement due to mode shift but has an existing through route with a direct, parallel/convenient alternative in another neighbourhood, potentially leading to acute traffic displacement. In these instances, the option of implementing more than one LTN should be explored. This will not always apply as the layout of the road network in London often does not provide parallel routes in this way. There may also be cases where preventing high traffic flows in one LTN disrupts part of a longer ‘rat run’ that affects other neighbourhoods, potentially reducing traffic there as well. Potential traffic impacts should be discussed with TfL. • Boroughs should work with TfL to discuss how proposals for LTNs may affect local bus routes including journey times, both along perimeter roads and any routes that go through a proposed neighbourhood. It is important that the needs of different bus customers are considered in the design and implementation of LTNs. Bus gates are a good option for allowing for continued through-routes for buses without offering the same to general traffic. • Emergency service access must also be given careful consideration, with early dialogue with these services strongly recommended in addition to their role as statutory consultees. Vehicle widths should be considered and it may be appropriate to use non-physical filtering (e.g. cameras and enforcement) in some locations so areas can still be accessible to emergency vehicles in locations where through travel is considered essential. Collapsible/moveable barriers that can allow emergencies vehicles through but block general traffic may also be an option worth discussion. TfL assesses bids for funding from boroughs based on deliverability, value and location. For the assessment of how suitable a proposed location for an LTN is, TfL will use the following criteria, in part informed by the SNA: • Traffic and road danger reduction • Enabling social distancing • Cycle connectivity • Safe access to schools • Demographics/deprivation • General suitability/other characteristics Note that the SNA does not impact the assessment of deliverability or value and thus cannot be definitive on whether an area is appropriate for a bid or not. Deliverability and value are both important to consider when selecting where to submit proposals for. How to plan and design LTNs Engagement on LTN proposals is crucial to successful implementation. Residential streets often generate a sense of ownership and belonging for those who live on them and can have a major influence on their quality of life. Co-design approaches where councils work with the community to design schemes can often produce the best results. This initial engagement should shape plans while formal consultation and notice periods (e.g. for Experimental Traffic Orders, or ETOs) are still required to ensure schemes are legally implemented. The current lockdown restrictions and the timescales in which measures need to be delivered present considerable engagement challenges, particularly preventing in-person consultation events. However, there are other options, such as online tools where the community can comment on specific locations and the issues they have faced there (see Figure 2 for an example). Steps should be taken to reach out to those who may find it more difficult to contribute online. Figure 2 – An example online platform for community comment and engagement Source: Kentish Town Healthy Streets on Common Place (https://kentishtownhealthystreets.commonplace.is/) Another important aspect will be the nature of the intervention. Using temporary materials to restrict motorised vehicle access not only has the advantage of being lower cost, it also affords the opportunity for alterations to be made relatively quickly and easily, when using ETOs. In some cases, it may be appropriate to adjust schemes based on community feedback and/or observations and data on, for example, traffic flows. The approach above can help to identify appropriate neighbourhood ‘cell’ boundaries and identify any severance points to address. This should, along with an understanding of their impacts, begin to inform the plan for intervention. Optioneering and trade-offs are then a key part of the next stage in the design process. These options and their impact should be communicated to political, public and other local stakeholders, as discussed with TfL as necessary. LTNs generally do not require significant civil engineering so can be designed quickly and at low cost. There are a variety of different types of intervention available, which may be appropriate depending on the specific challenges that boroughs are seeking to address. These include: • Modal filters: bollards, planters or banned turns, cycle contra-flows, bus gates, cameras/enforcement • Measures to enhance public realm and urban greening e.g. planters and parklets, pocket parks at closure points in either a temporary or semi-permanent form, and if there is scope for more permanent features, sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) • Cycle parking, preferably on the carriageway rather than the footway. This may serve as destination parking e.g. Sheffield stands at shops or for short stay on residential streets, or for home-use by residents e.g. cycle hangars • The inclusion of school street(s) • It may be appropriate in locations with local cafes and restaurants to using closures to make space available on-street for tables and chairs in a socially distanced manner, once the hospitality sector is allowed to re-open Figure 2 – Illustrative LTN achieved through a range of complementary interventions It is recommended to consider how these measures can complement one another and provide efficiencies through good planning and design: • Modal filters offer the opportunity to significantly enhance the quality of the walking and cycling environment on both the street that is being filtered and adjacent roads. The connectivity of the internal neighbourhood street network should be assessed, with strategic placement of filters working together to deter rat running. Careful design is required because excessive use of filters can increase costs and may not always provide the best outcomes – particularly if residents are not engaged on the scheme design. A balance of restricting through motor traffic and allowing access for residents is needed in most instances. Access and through movement of emergency service vehicles must also be considered in close co- operation and consultation with the emergency services. • Modal filters may provide additional value when they are located at the most common entry/exit points of the neighbourhood for people cycling. When placed within a neighbourhood, they can help to create a flexible community space. They can also be used to create space for local businesses for either queueing, or as the hospitality sector is allowed to reopen, tables and chairs within the public realm. • How neighbourhood cells link with one another should be considered, particularly for people walking and cycling as they cross main roads. Existing controlled crossings at neighbourhood cell boundaries may inform where interventions within the neighbourhood are prioritised; for example, to enhance walking provision along a link that directly links to a crossing providing access to an adjacent neighbourhood. • Access for freight and servicing should be considered when locating filters, particularly how they relate to the main roads around them. In some instances, it may be appropriate to set a filter back to allow kerbside access at the top of the side road while still restricting vehicle movement along it (this may be particularly relevant where nearby loading requirements can be moved away from the main road to free up space there). • It may be necessary to suspend car parking bays where modal filters are proposed (as well as in other locations to support social distancing). It may be appropriate in some instances to set a filter back to allow for car parking, although this should not be prioritised over safe access for people walking and cycling. For further guidance on this issue, see the supplementary guidance on car parking. Wordsworth Road filter at junction to support the provision of a signed cycle route (left) and road narrowing to facilitate traffic calming (right) Consideration should be given as to how interventions can be adjusted as part of a monitoring regime and what changes would be needed to make a layout permanent should it prove successful. Details of changes should be passed onto providers of digital mapping and wayfinding tools e.g. Google and SatNav companies to avoid traffic continuing to attempt to route into the neighbourhood. Summary Implementation of LTNs can have a significant impact on local active travel opportunities and outcomes. This guidance sets out the main principles to consider when planning an LTN. The Strategic Neighbourhoods Analysis should be read alongside this guidance to inform the selection and prioritisation of schemes by borough officers, councillors and stakeholders. |