Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Slowtwitch
Posts: 744
Joined: 25 Oct 2021, 11:35pm

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by Slowtwitch »

I live in a no traffic neighbourhood, which I absolutely love 8)
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by Vorpal »

Stevek76 wrote: 27 Feb 2022, 1:06pm
Really though the idea that transport modelling itself is the root of all problems is common but woefully misguided. Transport models, rather like h&s and gdpr are used (incorrectly) as a useful excuse by the person(s) responsible, in this case politicians, to do or not do something they were already set on anyway.
While that's true, and the specialists who use models & explain the results to others struggle against that problem in many fields, like many such things, there is also a kernal of truth at the heart of this idea.

One of the problems with traffic modelling, as with any sort of modelling, is that you get out of it what you put into it. And traffic modelling in the UK has, in many ways, prioritised motor vehicles. I don't know if this is still true, but the TRL software used to minimise RTCs. This seems like a really good idea, until you consider that the vast majority of crashes are shunts, and this approach to modelling is a significant contributor to the UK favouring obtuse approach angles on roundabouts, to the point that through traffic is hardly slowed by a roundabout on a quiet road, and this is the sort that is labelled 'normal' in design guidance.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6261
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by Bmblbzzz »

I'd agree with Vorpal on that. The problem is not modelling but the model used (and the choice of data).
Stevek76
Posts: 2086
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by Stevek76 »

Yes, but there's no requirement for a local authority to accept a shonky arcady or to let its empirical (from decades old data) predictions override that council's objectives set out in its policy documents.

A big problem I have with the study is that it heavily conflates the kind of traffic engineering modelling that's often done as part of a developer's planning application with large scale strategic modelling intended to be part of a business case to obtain funding from the DfT. TAG is only responsible for the latter and has very little to say about the former.

That won't stop a developer claiming otherwise but the issue there is lack of expertise in local government to deal with that. Proactive authorities like TfL have their own modelling guidance tailored to what they expect to see and they have the expertise to check that (or to ensure it is checked as they do outsource some) and whilst they're still car friendlier than I'd like it's a clear demonstration of the influence local authorities have in this matter. Particularly when that's backed up with policy setting out their transport plans. I'd argue the study is playing with semantics on the predict and provide vs vision and validate. The prediction is a product of the vision, if the vision is cars so will be the prediction.


Specifically with the high speed roundabout and junction design, this is also straying into actual highway engineering where, in my experience, there's is a much bigger issue with car centric thinking, both in private firms and embedded into local authorities. There's a similar problem here though with local authorities deferring to DMRB, a set of standards specifically intended for trunk roads because they lack the will/expertise to set out their own appropriate local standards.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
User avatar
RickH
Posts: 5834
Joined: 5 Mar 2012, 6:39pm
Location: Horwich, Lancs.

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by RickH »

Stevek76 wrote: 2 Mar 2022, 10:59pm Yes, but there's no requirement for a local authority to accept a shonky arcady or to let its empirical (from decades old data) predictions override that council's objectives set out in its policy documents...
What on earth is "a shonky arcady"?

I don't know if it was national policy or more local, but I have heard that any proposed remodelling of road layouts would automatically be rejected if there was likely to be a detrimental effect on the flow of motor traffic.

That was one of the "clever" aspects of the CYCLOPS junctions that have started to be installed around the Manchester area. For cyclists they bypass traffic lights for left turns & allow right turns & straight ahead in one maneuver (If you are quick it should be possible to do a full 360 circuit in one light phase - I've done it on the first Bolton one.) Because they swap the cycle route & the pedestrian crossings compared to the classic Dutch version, the knock-on effect is that pedestrian crossings are shorter (& also, where appropriate, allow diagonal crossings) they need slightly shorter pedestrian phases thus increasing the motor traffic flow.

That has, at least in theory, changed with the Government's publishing of Gear Change (PDF) & LTN1/20 (PDF - not Local Traffic Neighbourhoods but Local Transport Note) allows, & even expects, space to be re-allocated from motor traffic to walking & cycling.
Former member of the Cult of the Polystyrene Head Carbuncle.
Stevek76
Posts: 2086
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by Stevek76 »

'arcady' (it's one of those slightly contrived acronyms) is the TRL roundabout software/model vorpal mentioned above.

Shonky was just me being dismissive of the kind of work typically done in support of planning applications where the developer's aim is usually to minimise spend and maximise profit. Hence use of the empirical formulae that sit behind arcady to build or widen roundabouts with geometry that's inappropriately wide and fast.
RickH wrote: 2 Mar 2022, 11:50pm I don't know if it was national policy or more local, but I have heard that any proposed remodelling of road layouts would automatically be rejected if there was likely to be a detrimental effect on the flow of motor traffic.
For local roads (i.e. everything not a trunk road) that's entirely local policy. Sadly seems to be the case in Bristol as well at the moment. Of course, the same councils often have some greenwash policies about how they want to reduce private motor vehicle use in the future. Sometimes this is a case of stubborn council highways/traffic engineering departments with a lack of political will to change it, other cases it can something that derives from political direction.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by Psamathe »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/03/candidates-in-21-council-areas-run-ads-opposing-ltns-and-clean-air-zones wrote:Candidates in 21 council areas run ads opposing LTNs and clean air zones
Candidates in 21 council areas in Thursday’s local elections have pledged to roll back low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) or clean air zones, a Guardian analysis of Facebook ad library data has found.

Most of the adverts – 136 out of 164 analysed – were placed by Tory candidates, putting local Conservative parties at odds with central government which has encouraged councils to adopt clean air zones and LTNs, and funded the schemes.
...
Ian
ratherbeintobago
Posts: 974
Joined: 5 Dec 2010, 6:31pm

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by ratherbeintobago »

Psamathe wrote: 3 May 2022, 4:32pm
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/03/candidates-in-21-council-areas-run-ads-opposing-ltns-and-clean-air-zones wrote:Candidates in 21 council areas run ads opposing LTNs and clean air zones
Candidates in 21 council areas in Thursday’s local elections have pledged to roll back low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) or clean air zones, a Guardian analysis of Facebook ad library data has found.

Most of the adverts – 136 out of 164 analysed – were placed by Tory candidates, putting local Conservative parties at odds with central government which has encouraged councils to adopt clean air zones and LTNs, and funded the schemes.
...
Ian
Of course it was Tory council candidates.

Not that the other parties have got particularly shiny records on this (including my own which is meant to be green and doesn't have a cycling group because of that 🙄) but the Tories are worse. I think CFOC was looking for examples of where Conservative councils had done well on AT…

Edit: should add that if you've not voted, please do so.
Stevek76
Posts: 2086
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by Stevek76 »

With election day done and the results in this appears to be another year demonstrating that being anti LTNs isn't a vote winner and that implementing them is certainly no vote loser and on average appears to have been rewarded at the ballot box.

Dithering on them has generally been unsuccessful. Perhaps Biggs might have kept out the fraudulent Rahman had he actually followed through, and Labour Ealing did fairly neutrally in comparison to their colleagues in more committed boroughs.

Outside of London several Birmingham councillors returned with bigger vote shares despite their party's no messing about approach to the clean air zone and an otherwise shift from car centric planning. And here in Bristol, though I'm sure there were numerous issues behind the vote to ditch the mayor system, given the inner area shift to greens last year, the present mayor's glacial progress on sustainable transport likely didn't help.


Obviously measuring single issues from multi issue elections is a tricky business but I think at a minimum it's becoming quite clear that opposing car constraining measures in cities isn't going to win you votes and proactively implementing them doesn't lose you votes
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
Jdsk
Posts: 24640
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by Jdsk »

Stevek76 wrote: 7 May 2022, 12:01pm With election day done and the results in this appears to be another year demonstrating that being anti LTNs isn't a vote winner and that implementing them is certainly no vote loser and on average appears to have been rewarded at the ballot box.

...

Obviously measuring single issues from multi issue elections is a tricky business but I think at a minimum it's becoming quite clear that opposing car constraining measures in cities isn't going to win you votes and proactively implementing them doesn't lose you votes
Yes.

Summary from The Big Issue:
https://www.bigissue.com/news/politics/ ... elections/

Jonathan
ratherbeintobago
Posts: 974
Joined: 5 Dec 2010, 6:31pm

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by ratherbeintobago »

proactively implementing them doesn't lose you votes
This is the key bit, I think. Even CFOC was on Twitter saying as much, while many of their party’s candidates were opposing AT measures.
Jdsk
Posts: 24640
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by Jdsk »

"Promote safety benefits of low-traffic schemes, Boardman tells councils"
https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... s-councils

Jonathan
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by thirdcrank »

Re local politics, I think this is an example of the concept being one thing, the implementation in specific locations being another. Local councillors without a cabinet role etc are now little more than a focus for veyry local interests. With abysmally low turnouts, they know that upsetting the residents in Acacia Avenue with a scheme they don't like may lose their seat. In spades if the scheme upsets the resident in Acacia Road and Acacia Lane. This doesn't need to be logical in that those residents may well want it both ways: no through traffic but total freedom of movement for their own vehicles and any visitors.

I think useful analysis would have to be a a very fine grain eg full postcode - street by street. Not easy academically, but individual local politicians will know without having it explained
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by mjr »

thirdcrank wrote: 14 May 2022, 9:51amThis doesn't need to be logical in that those residents may well want it both ways: no through traffic but total freedom of movement for their own vehicles and any visitors.
I'm not sure they'd object to visitors having to leave by the route they entered. The rest is possible with modern technology, if there's political will.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Post Reply