Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

[Bmblbzzz]

A variant of this was seen in Morgan Street in the St Pauls district of Bristol when the RPZs were being rolled out about eight years ago. The residents objected to "having to pay to park on our own street" so blockaded the workers who had been sent to put up the necessary signs and so on. They did this repeatedly, till eventually the mayor laughed and said okay, let them have it their own way.

So theirs was the only street within a mile or two of the centre that had free public parking, with predictable results. Eventually they reached a compromise where they became part of the RPZ but without marked bays, pretending it was the paint on the road they'd objected to all along.

[pwa]

This news story from Bridgend seems to me to relate to this topic.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-60145268

It is people taking control of their own cul-de-sac twice a day to prevent it being overwhelmed with turning school run cars that can no longer use a relatively new dropping off facility outside a new school. The council decided the dropping off facility has been having dangerous situations, so they have closed it and thus put those situations onto a nearby cul-de-sac.

You can see the layout here:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Lon+D ... 9?hl=en-GB

The street that the residents barricade is Lon Derw, and the closed drop-off facility is the race-track looking thing to the right. Unfortunately this street and school are too new to be on Streetview.

I can't comment on that example, but speaking generally, residents tend to want all traffic and associated parking banned, except for their own vehicles and visitors. ie Not a low traffic neighbourhood but rather an only my traffic neighbourhood

What it does show is a desire for a quiet residential street (which is what it is outside school dropping off and picking up) to stay that way all the time. I have been to that street, which is only a couple of years old, and it is a very quiet street normally. About 30 homes at most, and only their own traffic and deliveries. It benefits from being a cul-de-sac, so there is no through traffic. Cul-de-sacs are an old and successful arrangement for cutting out through traffic. I don't know why we don't have more of them, because they do work.

Here is a view into that particular cul-de-sac from the adjacent main road, and you can see that while motorised through traffic is prevented, pedestrians and cyclists can get through:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5480427 ... 2?hl=en-GB
So while conditions for cycling aren't great throughout the rest of the neighbourhood, this cul-de-sac in itself is not half bad. If only it were not being used as a turn-around and drop off area by school run people.

The irony of this particular dispute is that the new school has an extensive one way system drop-off facility which was clearly intended to avoid congestion on neighbouring streets. But it has been temporarily closed because it was proving unsafe. My guess is that pedestrians (including kids) were not remaining adequately separated from moving vehicles. So the problem has been transferred offsite and onto a nearby residential street, where the problems will be worse. I anticipate swift remedial action now the story has got onto TV.

[thirdcrank]

Why does a new school generate so much traffic it upsets equally new residents?

[pwa]

Why does a new school generate so much traffic it upsets equally new residents?

As far as I am aware, it is just a standard Primary school, but due to the local geography, and the move towards larger schools, its catchment is quite large and includes neighbourhoods that are not close by or pleasant to walk / cycle from. And of course there are plenty of parents who will drop the kids off on their way to work, or those who just don't like exercise. If the large drop off facility were working, it should be big enough to guarantee little or no extra traffic on the cul-de-sac in question. This particular problem is being created by displacement due to the gates on the drop off area being closed.

[squeaker]

The irony of this particular dispute is that the new school has an extensive one way system drop-off facility which was clearly intended to avoid congestion on neighbouring streets. But it has been temporarily closed because it was proving unsafe. My guess is that pedestrians (including kids) were not remaining adequately separated from moving vehicles.

The drop-off design does require kids to cross a motor traffic lane - what did the designers expect?

[pwa]

The irony of this particular dispute is that the new school has an extensive one way system drop-off facility which was clearly intended to avoid congestion on neighbouring streets. But it has been temporarily closed because it was proving unsafe. My guess is that pedestrians (including kids) were not remaining adequately separated from moving vehicles.

The drop-off design does require kids to cross a motor traffic lane - what did the designers expect?

I haven't looked at it in detail, but it does sound like the segregation has not proved adequate. And that is disappointing in a facility that must have cost a lot to create.

[squeaker]

I haven't looked at it in detail, but it does sound like the segregation has not proved adequate. And that is disappointing in a facility that must have cost a lot to create.

Bet the local Greenpower Goblin race group will be eyeing it up as a potential race track though

[RickH]

Why does a new school generate so much traffic it upsets equally new residents?

As far as I am aware, it is just a standard Primary school, but due to the local geography, and the move towards larger schools, its catchment is quite large and includes neighbourhoods that are not close by or pleasant to walk / cycle from. And of course there are plenty of parents who will drop the kids off on their way to work, or those who just don't like exercise. If the large drop off facility were working, it should be big enough to guarantee little or no extra traffic on the cul-de-sac in question. This particular problem is being created by displacement due to the gates on the drop off area being closed.

I was at a meeting in December where one lady was talking about school streets (closing the road outside a school during drop off & pick up times to all but residents & other authorised users). She did a survey of parents at her children's primary school & found that over 50% were driving children to/from school AND were travelling less than a mile AND were going straight to or from home on the other part of the journey! That is an urban school in Manchester & I don't know how typical or atypical that is.

[Stevek76]

The whole place is full of car dependency embedding design. Lots of cul-de-sacs without connecting walk/cycle paths. I'd bet a majority of the driven pupils are from Sarn etc, not far off villages

That schools one way car park looks like the kind of car dystopian horror more usually associated with the US, what a depressingly large chunk of land tarmaced over.

[thirdcrank]

Why does a new school generate so much traffic it upsets equally new residents?

As far as I am aware, it is just a standard Primary school, but due to the local geography, and the move towards larger schools, its catchment is quite large and includes neighbourhoods that are not close by or pleasant to walk / cycle from. And of course there are plenty of parents who will drop the kids off on their way to work, or those who just don't like exercise. If the large drop off facility were working, it should be big enough to guarantee little or no extra traffic on the cul-de-sac in question. This particular problem is being created by displacement due to the gates on the drop off area being closed.

AIUI, LTNs are largely about preventing through traffic. If so, then journeys to school in a case like this are not through traffic, but rather are essential journeys to a destination in the neighbourhood; only the mode of travel is open to change. AIUI, one aggravating factor is parental freedom of choice of school, which, in short can lead to school journeys all over the place.

If I've got this right from the streetview the school here is Coleg Cymunedol Y Dderwen a secondary school which traditionally would have had a larger catchment than a primary, but OTOH, the older pupils taught there ought to be better able to travel further to school "under their own steam" than primary school pupils.
https://ccyd.co.uk/our-school
It's what I think is implied by Steve76. It's been designed for car use so anything related to active travel is tacked on as an afterthought in a vain attempt to mitigate the antics of the highwaymen. AKA priffyrdd on bilingual signs. The residents barricading the street is a symptom of official failure at the most fundamental level

On the subject of my roadsign Welsh, I see that Cymunedol like its English equiivalent "community" has become meaningless. It's a bit like "greenwash" but actually hogwash.

[pwa]

Why does a new school generate so much traffic it upsets equally new residents?

As far as I am aware, it is just a standard Primary school, but due to the local geography, and the move towards larger schools, its catchment is quite large and includes neighbourhoods that are not close by or pleasant to walk / cycle from. And of course there are plenty of parents who will drop the kids off on their way to work, or those who just don't like exercise. If the large drop off facility were working, it should be big enough to guarantee little or no extra traffic on the cul-de-sac in question. This particular problem is being created by displacement due to the gates on the drop off area being closed.

AIUI, LTNs are largely about preventing through traffic. If so, then journeys to school in a case like this are not through traffic, but rather are essential journeys to a destination in the neighbourhood; only the mode of travel is open to change. AIUI, one aggravating factor is parental freedom of choice of school, which, in short can lead to school journeys all over the place.

If I've got this right from the streetview the school here is Coleg Cymunedol Y Dderwen a secondary school which traditionally would have had a larger catchment than a primary, but OTOH, the older pupils taught there ought to be better able to travel further to school "under their own steam" than primary school pupils.
https://ccyd.co.uk/our-school
It's what I think is implied by Steve76. It's been designed for car use so anything related to active travel is tacked on as an afterthought in a vain attempt to mitigate the antics of the highwaymen. AKA priffyrdd on bilingual signs. The residents barricading the street is a symptom of official failure at the most fundamental level

On the subject of my roadsign Welsh, I see that Cymunedol like its English equiivalent "community" has become meaningless. It's a bit like "greenwash" but actually hogwash.

The school in question is actually the adjacent primary school. But due to the closure of smaller schools elsewhere it has a larger catchment than you might imagine, with kids coming from about three miles away. I don't know whether buses are provided. Just as background, there has been some attempt at converting nearby pavements into shared walking / cycling paths:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5462759 ... 2?hl=en-GB
But they fizzle out as you leave the immediate vicinity of the schools.
And the speed limit on the main road past the two schools is now 20mph, down from the 30 of a few years back. A series of speed bumps reinforce that. I wouldn't send a seven year old out on a bike on their own there, though.

The cul-de-sac is effective at blocking through traffic, of course, but not at preventing cars coming in to drop kids off and turn around. The really shocking thing is that the school has a dropping off facility that has cost a lot of money but has been closed because of safety issues. Those safety issues have not been solved by displacing drop offs to adjacent streets, but the education authority will not be liable to legal action for accidents that happen offsite. They would prefer that any accidents happen out on the streets. That is their concern, not the prevention of accidents at all.

[thirdcrank]

Right. Here's the google map but the streetview car hasn't made it round there.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5482592 ... z?hl=en-GB

The school is Ysgol Gynradd Brynmenyn Primary School

https://www.brynmenynprimaryschool.co.uk/

Setting aside my guff about the other nearby school, this is still relevant

AIUI, LTNs are largely about preventing through traffic. If so, then journeys to school in a case like this are not through traffic, but rather are essential journeys to a destination in the neighbourhood; only the mode of travel is open to change. AIUI, one aggravating factor is parental freedom of choice of school, which, in short can lead to school journeys all over the place. ... It's been designed for car use so anything related to active travel is tacked on as an afterthought in a vain attempt to mitigate the antics of the highwaymen. AKA priffyrdd on bilingual signs. The residents barricading the street is a symptom of official failure at the most fundamental level

[squeaker]

The really shocking thing is that the school has a dropping off facility that has cost a lot of money but has been closed because of safety issues. Those safety issues have not been solved by displacing drop offs to adjacent streets, but the education authority will not be liable to legal action for accidents that happen offsite. They would prefer that any accidents happen out on the streets. That is their concern, not the prevention of accidents at all.

Took the words out of my mouth!

[Stevek76]

Ltns aren't just about removing through traffic, they're also about discouraging short car trips by local residents whilst maintaining high connectivity by walk & cycle. Those modes are also made more attractive by the streets having low motor flows. Ideally low enough to pass the 'would people let their late primary school child cycle on it' test.

The short trips are discouraged by basically turning them into long trips, whilst maintaining the short trip as an option for walk & cycle.

An ltn is mostly a treatment for pre motor dominance residential networks as these were built with high permeability.

More modern networks of cul de sacs are already ltns in the sense of restricting motor movements but most lack the required dense network of cycle connections and the few that do have connections tend to be poor quality shared paths.

This is the sort of network that really embeds car dependency as it makes short trips (crow fly) long and annoying by all modes so people just use cars.

Most of the settlement in question is this sort of network. Unfortunately it's somewhat trickier to sort as you'd typically need to demolish a few houses to provide the required connections.

[thirdcrank]

I'll put what I'm saying a different way. There's a wish - a dream - of reducing motor traffic / increasing active travel for various excellent reasons. The reality, then, would need a return to a time when there was less car dependency, preferably nil. That's not going to be easy in suburban settlements where car dependency has increasingly been a given. New developments offer an opportunity: in this example houses and primary school are together, which should help when travel habits are formed in early childhood. The most obvious problem then is parental freedom of school choice, whereby schools might as well all be provided with massive car parks. The next thing is employment. The days of people working in factories at the end of the street are gone. Through traffic is other people's journeys and the school run in cars is a form of through traffic - other people's journeys - which go in-and-out rather than straight through. Every car user is making "other people's journeys" when they leave their own house.