Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

[ratherbeintobago]

This seems as good a place as any

Croydon Council deprived of £70,000 in traffic camera revenue

In six weeks I stopped more than 700 people

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60221439

Bearing in mind that prevention of offending is much better than detection and prosecution, I'd say "Well done Ricky!"

Yes indeed. Not the best reportage on the part of the BBC there.

[Jdsk]

"Building Car Dependency, 2022":
https://www.transportfornewhomes.org.uk ... ort_launch

"Rather than the walkable, green, and sustainable places that both the Government and developers envisage for future living, new greenfield housing has become even more car-based than before and the trend has extended to surrounding areas, with out-of-town retail, leisure, food outlets and employment orientated around new road systems."

Coverage in the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... port-finds

Jonathan

[ChrisButch]

"Building Car Dependency, 2022":
https://www.transportfornewhomes.org.uk ... ort_launch

"Rather than the walkable, green, and sustainable places that both the Government and developers envisage for future living, new greenfield housing has become even more car-based than before and the trend has extended to surrounding areas, with out-of-town retail, leisure, food outlets and employment orientated around new road systems."

Coverage in the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... port-finds

Jonathan

Rather than the report itself (which describes a state of affairs all too familiar to us living in parts of the country surrounded by new greenfield estates such as those described), the most interesting thing in the Guardian piece is the government response. Usually what you get is something totally anodyne, simply repeating what the government claims already to have done or spent etc on the issue concerned. In this case, however, the tone is quite different: positively enthusiastic, even:

"We welcome this report and agree that new development should be less dependent on cars. By 2030, we want half of all journeys in towns and cities to be walked or cycled....

“National Planning Policy is clear that significant development should give priority to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport, and we will be updating guidance later this year to promote street design that favours walkways and cycle paths over motor traffic.”

The situation at the moment is that plenty of local authorities have adopted Local Plans and policies which say all the right things: but when push comes to shove, the developers, who have to bear most of the cost of the new infrastructure through Section 106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy, negotiate their way out of any commitment, and the local authority is powerless to enforce. If these local aspirations are now given statutory teeth through national planning policy, this, coupled with the already announced status of Active Travel England as a statutory consultee on all major planning applications, may at last repair the disconnect with the planning system and trigger significant change. Far too late to stop the grotesque monstrosities which are already happening, but still...

[Pete Owens]

It could have been a useful report - looking at all these locations in more depth and seeing what has worked and what hasn't, the design philosophy of all these places, how the locals got about - where they worked, shopped, went to school and so on. It just turned out to be a whinge fest - with superficial photo tours.

In no way can the "conclusions" of the report be said to be based on the evidence gathered from their visits. Indeed if anything, the opposite is true since all these places to a greater or lesser degree are examples of places designed according to the principles they are advocating.

I am familiar with one of the developments in the report: Chapelford in North West Warrington. The comments seriously misrepresent the place. It has good points and bad points - most arising from a battle of wills between the developers (who were trying to design a neighbourhood along the principals that this report is advocation) and the auto-centric planners.

[Jdsk]

"Building Car Dependency, 2022":
https://www.transportfornewhomes.org.uk ... ort_launch

"Rather than the walkable, green, and sustainable places that both the Government and developers envisage for future living, new greenfield housing has become even more car-based than before and the trend has extended to surrounding areas, with out-of-town retail, leisure, food outlets and employment orientated around new road systems."

Coverage in the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... port-finds

Rather than the report itself (which describes a state of affairs all too familiar to us living in parts of the country surrounded by new greenfield estates such as those described), the most interesting thing in the Guardian piece is the government response. Usually what you get is something totally anodyne, simply repeating what the government claims already to have done or spent etc on the issue concerned. In this case, however, the tone is quite different: positively enthusiastic, even:

"We welcome this report and agree that new development should be less dependent on cars. By 2030, we want half of all journeys in towns and cities to be walked or cycled....

“National Planning Policy is clear that significant development should give priority to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport, and we will be updating guidance later this year to promote street design that favours walkways and cycle paths over motor traffic.”

The situation at the moment is that plenty of local authorities have adopted Local Plans and policies which say all the right things: but when push comes to shove, the developers, who have to bear most of the cost of the new infrastructure through Section 106 and the Community Infrastructure Levy, negotiate their way out of any commitment, and the local authority is powerless to enforce. If these local aspirations are now given statutory teeth through national planning policy, this, coupled with the already announced status of Active Travel England as a statutory consultee on all major planning applications, may at last repair the disconnect with the planning system and trigger significant change. Far too late to stop the grotesque monstrosities which are already happening, but still...

That's how I read it.

And of course control of planning is likely to be a major issue in elections...

Jonathan (in South Oxfordshire)

[ChrisButch]

..............It has good points and bad points - most arising from a battle of wills between the developers (who were trying to design a neighbourhood along the principals that this report is advocation) and the auto-centric planners.

Goodness. That must be a rare exception. The norm is the reverse.

[Pete Owens]

No, the norm is for planning authorities to insist on excessive provision for motors through local planning guidance. Most developers preempt any arguments by designing the low density auto-centric unwalkable neighbourhoods specified in the local planning documents - which tend to be pretty much the same everywhere.

[ChrisButch]

I can only repeat that the norm as I have observed it has been the reverse, with the planning authority in masterplanning for greenfield development areas specifying active travel requirements, but these, which may sometimes initially be observed in outline applications and consents, being subsequently deleted after pressure from the developers in 'reserved matters' stage Section 106 negotiations etc. Furthermore that the authority is reluctant to refuse consent on these grounds when appeals have subsequently been upheld by the planning inspector on the grounds that meeting local housing targets in the adopted local plan trumps supposedly secondary considerations of this kind. These observations are, however, based on a relatively limited geographical area (although with several different authorities). Other areas may be more fortunate.

[Pete Owens]

I can only repeat that the norm as I have observed it has been the reverse, with the planning authority in masterplanning for greenfield development areas specifying active travel requirements, but these, which may sometimes initially be observed in outline applications and consents, being subsequently deleted after pressure from the developers in 'reserved matters' stage Section 106 negotiations etc. Furthermore that the authority is reluctant to refuse consent on these grounds when appeals have subsequently been upheld by the planning inspector on the grounds that meeting local housing targets in the adopted local plan trumps supposedly secondary considerations of this kind. These observations are, however, based on a relatively limited geographical area (although with several different authorities). Other areas may be more fortunate.

The trouble with that that is you are taking for granted that the design of the development is inherently and unavoidably auto-supremacist. As will your local planning guidelines. And seeing provision for active travel as something to add on, rather than the core of the design.

The developers will (probably) have built a low density poorly connected auto-centric design with cul-de-sacs leading to local distributer roads leading to district distributer roads - because that is what your local design guidance will specify. They will try to avoid planning hold ups so there will not be battles over this - they know they would not get planning permission for a car-free development - or even one with restricted car storage, so they won't even try.

Section 106 funding will typically be used to increase the capacity of the junction where all this meets the major through road - and that will usually supposedly "cater" for active travel with a shed load of inconvenient multi-stage crossings equipped with beg buttons and long delays. The developers will not have donated the land and designed all that wasteful car orientated infrastructure out of the goodness of their hearts, but because the planners will have insisted on it. the whole concept is inherently auto centric - and bolting on a few farcilities as an afterthought is not going to change that - indeed by taking up even more land they are making the development less dense thus less walkable.

What the authors of the report are asking for is turning this process on its head and designing places around the needs of people walking cycling and using buses and seeing facilitating access by motor vehicle as a secondary consideration. It seems odd that they should be so relentlessly negative in reporting a few places that have been notable in pushing back even a little bit against this trend.

[pwa]

How do folk get deliveries of groceries, washing machines or bicycle parts if their home isn't very close to vehicle access? Or is online shopping also seen as part of the problem, and to be squeezed out? I have observed delivery vehicles parked in awkward and illegal spots on a development I know, because some of the homes have no vehicle access to the front and (I am guessing) the drivers don't know how to get round to the back, and there might not be numbers on the back gates anyway. So they park at a distance and trolley stuff awkwardly to the front doors. They have to compete with residents' cars for parking spaces near the end of the pedestrian only access, hence the dodgy parking. I was working nearby and watched this arrangement over several lunch breaks some years ago. And frankly, it's a mess. If you anticipate deliveries, you ought to facilitate them in the layout design. And that doesn't just mean painting the words "loading only" on a parking place because that will immediately be taken by a blue badge user.

These are the homes. It isn't a LTN, but it illustrated, for me, the issues with deliveries to homes that don't have obvious and direct vehicle access. The apparent road to the front has bollards at each end and is for pedestrian / cycle use except when the bollards are removed. Is there an answer to this or do we just say we don't care?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Port+ ... 7?hl=en-GB

I agree that the provision of alternative transport options doesn't stop folk using the car. In our village a field was lost to a new housing development. One of the objections to it happening was that it would put more traffic on the adjacent B road that is already a concern where it passes through another village down the road. But the new development has a pre-existing bus stop beside it, which according to the council's criteria was a plus point. The development plan favours housing developments where public transport options exist because, it says, the council is planning for less traffic. Except, of course, people use their cars and not the bus. I go past that stop, in my car, on the bike or on foot, most days of the week, and not once have I seen anyone standing at that stop.

I have yet to see a housing development that incorporates low traffic principles in a properly thought out way. Can anyone suggest a UK example that addresses these issues? Good access for deliveries, attractive alternatives to the car?

[Pete Owens]

How do folk get deliveries of groceries, washing machines or bicycle parts if their home isn't very close to vehicle access? Or is online shopping also seen as part of the problem, and to be squeezed out? I have observed delivery vehicles parked in awkward and illegal spots on a development

And the reason our town planning is excessively auto-centric is that the planners think exactly like this. It is not sufficient that a place can be accessed by motor vehicles, every single minor inconvenience suffered by them must be addressed. It is not sufficient that a delivery vehicle can make a delivery, but they must be able do so very close to every front door in a convenient spot without temporarily getting in the way. It is not sufficient that it is possible for a large vehicle to get in and out, but the flares at the junctions must be so wide that they can sweep round, while keeping to their own side of the road.

I know, because ...

list of complaints about a development that as you correctly point out....

isn't a LTN,

Quite!

but it illustrated, for me, the issues with deliveries to homes that don't have obvious and direct vehicle access. The apparent road to the front has bollards at each end and is for pedestrian / cycle use except when the bollards are removed. Is there an answer to this or do we just say we don't care?
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Port+ ... 7?hl=en-GB

Not only is that not an LTN it s is the apotheosis of auto-centric town planning - the residential cul-de-sac. OK not strictly a cul-de-sac since in a minimalist concession to permeability there are two entrances, but both to the same motor oriented distributer road. There is no connectivity to any of the surroundings. (In this particular case it is an edge of town development so there is no wide neighbourhood to connect to). The amount of land given over to motors, when you include the parking courts and the road. The designers were clearly assuming that everyone living there would go everywhere by car so designed for quick access to high speed roads and excessive car storage to cater for multiple car households.

This is auto-centric planning in action. While the immediate vicinity of the houses may have low traffic levels (even people who drive everywhere do not want to live in the middle of a motorway junction) - as soon as you actually want to go anywhere you are soon in a motor dominated environment. The relevance of this street to LTNs is zero.

I have yet to see a housing development that incorporates low traffic principles in a properly thought out way. Can anyone suggest a UK example that addresses these issues? Good access for deliveries, attractive alternatives to the car?

That is because the needs of motors and those of active travel are in inherent conflict with each other. The more area you devote to motors, the lower the density of the development, the further everything is away so the more difficult it is to walk anywhere. If you make wide bell-mouthed junctions then the roads become more difficult to cross and so on. If you there is motor access from different directions then it is likely to be used as a rat run.

Similarly designs that prioritise the movement of people over that of vehicles will tend to be less inconvenient for drivers. Drivers are so used to having the whole world designed around their needs that they moan about even the slightest inconvenience.

Now for a better example of the sort of place where a LTN might be applicable take a look at this area just down the road:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/51.6028 ... m2!4m1!3e3
There you have a high density grid network of streets. This is what you need for a walkable neighbourhood - and the design will date from a time when everyone walked. Now I don't know the traffic patterns there, but those are also the sort of streets that can be used as rat-runs for through traffic. It looks like the council have gone out of their way to make as much provision for motors as possible, with very narrow pavements and parking bays still leaving enough room for comfortable two way motor traffic.

The idea of an LTN is to use strategically placed modal filters -things such bollards, or one-way sections, bus gates diagonal blocks at cross roads to force all motors to turn. This still maintains maintains motor access to everywhere (so you can still deliver to every front door, but no necessarily via the most convenient route), but not through motor traffic. Pedestrians and cyclists are left with a dense interconnected network of streets.

[pwa]

........Now for a better example of the sort of place where a LTN might be applicable take a look at this area just down the road:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/51.6028 ... m2!4m1!3e3
There you have a high density grid network of streets. This is what you need for a walkable neighbourhood - and the design will date from a time when everyone walked. Now I don't know the traffic patterns there, but those are also the sort of streets that can be used as rat-runs for through traffic. It looks like the council have gone out of their way to make as much provision for motors as possible, with very narrow pavements and parking bays still leaving enough room for comfortable two way motor traffic.

The idea of an LTN is to use strategically placed modal filters -things such bollards, or one-way sections, bus gates diagonal blocks at cross roads to force all motors to turn. This still maintains maintains motor access to everywhere (so you can still deliver to every front door, but no necessarily via the most convenient route), but not through motor traffic. Pedestrians and cyclists are left with a dense interconnected network of streets.

I know that neighbourhood quite well, and the (mainly) terraced streets have no bollarding or other modification yet. So the more arterial roads there (such as Julian Terrace) get quite a lot of traffic, calmed by ramps. And the streets that people have little reason to use unless visiting those streets get little traffic. All are used for parking.

I am not sure what physical measures could be employed there to turn it into a LTN. It isn't used as a rat run anyway, because it is already a bit of an island that you can't use to get to anywhere else. Except on a bike or by foot. At the hospital end, where it is blocked to motorised traffic, it is permeable to non-motorised folk. The terraced streets don't lend themselves to bollarding because they lack space for turn-around areas. You could pinch small sections of more arterial roads at the ends of the terraces to get the turn-arounds, but that would reduce the arterial roads and concentrate traffic on the remaining alternatives, to the detriment of folk who live beside them. And when you turn a street into a cul-de-sac you require any vehicle accessing the street to go down it twice, once in each direction, rather than just going down it once. If we were trying to cut out rat runs that could still be worthwhile, but as rat run activity doesn't happen there it is probably not a good measure.

What that neighbourhood does have in its favour is proximity to both the town centre, which can be reached more easily on foot or by bike than it can by car, and to employers. People who live there and work in the hospital, for example, will have a ten or fifteen minute walk to work. This is access directly onto the hospital site:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5965226 ... 312!8i6656

The industrial estate at Baglan Energy Park is a couple of miles away and can be reached by bike using shared use paths from the edge of this area of high density housing. The paths, which run past Abbotsmoor, are along the lines of converted footways that require frequent giving way at minor junctions with the flared ends you dislike, but they do get some use. This is a shared use bridge that could be used to get from Aberavon (the area you pointed out) to Baglan Energy Park
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6122489 ... 312!8i6656
So there are pluses here. There is some real, though imperfect, infrastructure for active travel, and it links to the right places.

[ChrisButch]

The trouble with that that is you are taking for granted that the design of the development is inherently and unavoidably auto-supremacist. As will your local planning guidelines. And seeing provision for active travel as something to add on, rather than the core of the design.

Well, here is an example of 'local planning guidelines' - an extract from the Masterplan for the Area B of the Tiverton Eastern Urban Extension:

"The masterplan is focussed on a network of
permeable and easy-to-use sustainable transport
corridors, enabling walking, cycling and public
transport access. These comprise of [sic]
paths, shared spaces and access through the green
infrastructure spines within the site. Alongside
this, the masterplan incorporates appropriate
provision for motor vehicle access, with streets
designed to provide for a range of vehicle types
(including cars, vans, delivery vehicles and buses)
whilst creating a safe, low-speed environment for
all users.
The development builds on the ‘walkable
neighbourhood’ principles described in Manual
for Streets, ensuring ease of access on foot to
the neighbourhood centre, bus routes, and into
the surrounding network - including recreational
access to the canal. The site benefits from wider
sustainable transport links, including ....
At the time of writing this SPD the national trend
is that travel patterns and transport preferences
are rapidly changing, with diminishing levels of
car ownership/licence holding amongst younger
people, and technological advances including
increasing demand for Electric Vehicles and
the development of Autonomous Vehicles. The
masterplan takes account of such changes through
the provision of flexible spaces which accommodate
current travel needs, and which can be re-purposed
or adapted to differing levels of demand....."

Would you say that this excerpt, taken as a whole,is fairly described by your characterisation ('inherently and unavoidably auto-centrist')? I don't see that it can be.

As I said earlier, these aspirations are disappearing now that the thing is actually happening - but it's certainly not the a priori assumptions of the planning authority which is driving that failure. The planning authority is hopelessly under-equipped to defend its stated principles, but that's a different matter.

[mattheus]

wossa SPD then?

sumink Planning summink?

[Jdsk]

"Supplementary Planning Document":
https://www.middevon.gov.uk/media/34890 ... 200114.pdf

Jonathan