Low traffic neighbourhoods: Sunak orders review

[johncrossley]

What about people who live in existing cul-de-sacs, where the street has never been a through road? Should they be joined onto a main road at the other end if there is space to build a connection? This deliberately absurd point emphasises the point that you don't, as a rule, build new estates as through routes. So the areas where LTN exist or are been considered would never have been built as through roads if they were built today. Banning LTNs implies you shouldn't put right the mistakes of the past.

 

[Cloud Strife]

but estates built in the 80s or 90s tend to be very good for these links.

Yes, my hometown is exactly like this. It has been built as a new suburb from the 1970s onwards, and the entire area is linked with a huge amount of footpaths. It's very easy to get around on bike, while the main roads circulate the traffic effectively.

It's only after moving to Poland, where urban planning is non-existent, did I realise just how great it was to grow up there. In Poland, new estates are built without any consideration to the surrounding area at all, meaning that it's impossible to move between areas without going on main roads. There's an example where I live, where the nearby forest is about 400m away from my house as the crow flies. Due to the lack of planning, it actually requires a 5km bike ride to get there, as there are simply no direct links.

 

[johncrossley]

Yes, my hometown is exactly like this. It has been built as a new suburb from the 1970s onwards, and the entire area is linked with a huge amount of footpaths. It's very easy to get around on bike, while the main roads circulate the traffic effectively.

What country is this in?

 

[Cloud Strife]

What country is this in?

Scotland, it's Westhill in (just) Aberdeenshire. There are still some problems with the town, such as the lack of a proper bypass, but all in all it works.

 

[A0wen]

If they are as unpopular as Sunak thinks, then the councillors responsible will find out at the next election. Those councillors, of course, are typically responding to demands for a LTN from their residents.

The problem is they might be popular with the residents but unpopular with people who live just outside them and are inconvenienced by them.

Said residents then get quite uppity when they find other schemes affect them....... It's a bit like ULEZ - where the boundaries mean people who live in places like Potters Bar or Romford - just outside the TFL area are going to be impacted on local journeys yet can't access any of the financial support packages which those inside the ULEZ zone can.

 

[JGurney]

And, furthermore, one presumes such residents never have any goods or services provided to them by road vehicles, either directly or indirectly. One assumes they never have any tradesman come to visit, nor any deliveries

Not at all. I live in what is in effect an early LTN. The Victorian developer who laid out the cluster of streets in the 1860's arranged them such that while every house has vehicular access there is no through vehicular route through it, but there is footpath access direct to the town centre. We and our neighbours have no difficulty getting deliveries or around tradespeople visiting. They just come along the roads.

 

[mpthomson]

Either way, there's still less pollution, it's quieter and safer.

Not necessarily. Some work and some don't. There's one in York that has just moved congestion and pollution to already congested roads, leading to just about permanent gridlock near the hospital. It's something that has benefitted a few people and inconvenienced many, whilst increasing pollution on what were already the city centre's most polluted roads. There's no evidence at all that it's had any effect on car numbers..

 

[Falcon1200]

What about people who live in existing cul-de-sacs, where the street has never been a through road? Should they be joined onto a main road at the other end if there is space to build a connection? This deliberately absurd point emphasises the point that you don't, as a rule, build new estates as through routes

Yet that is exactly what happened to my parents, in Oxford; When they bought their house in 1964 it was the last in the street, with fields behind. Then a housing estate was built on those fields, but they knew that was planned, and the traffic was still local. Later, however, their road was connected to the bypass and beyond, enabling traffic to avoid a twisty, narrow village road at the expense of those living on the new route. Later still, in an utterly ridiculous piece of urban planning, one of the country's largest hospitals was built nearby, close to that same bypass but with no direct link to it, meaning that their home is now on an extremely busy road, with traffic nose to tail during the rush hours and busy at other times. So they went from a quiet home on a cul-de-sac to being besieged, day and night, by traffic, with no possibility whatsoever of any amelioration. And it is not just cars; Heavy lorries, tourist coaches and empty buses use the route for access to Oxford, plus a regular flow of ambulances to and from that hospital, with sirens blaring (and for pedestrians, deafening).

So the deliberately absurd point is not absurd at all; Converting quiet cul-de-sacs into busy through routes has happened, with no consideration given at all to the residents whose lives are blighted. Which is why I view LTNs with such cynicism, because they benefit only the lucky few and by forcing traffic elsewhere, disadvantage others.

 

[johncrossley]

So the deliberately absurd point is not absurd at all; Converting quiet cul-de-sacs into busy through routes has happened, with no consideration given at all to the residents whose lives are blighted. Which is why I view LTNs with such cynicism, because they benefit only the lucky few and by forcing traffic elsewhere, disadvantage others.

Your story seems to support the existence of LTNs and you have explained that misery has resulted from the removal of what was effectively a LTN.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Your story seems to support the existence of LTNs and you have explained that misery has resulted from the removal of what was effectively a LTN.

I wonder if people would see the whole LTN thing differently if it was just called something like "cul de sac conversion" or something?

All it's doing is converting what were through roads into cul-de-sacs with walkways between them - a style of development that was very prevalent in the 70s. Are people calling for a house at the end of each cul-de-sac to be demolished to add a through road?

Is it just that people don't like change? Because just like "15 minute cities" about which there seems to be much protest*, you can still drive wherever you like in LTNs, you may just have to take a different route to get there.

* Milton Keynes is close to being a 15 minute city despite it being the best urban area in the UK for using a car, with high speed limits, cheap parking and very few restrictions. It's just about provision of local facilities so you don't *need* to drive, not anything to do with banning it.

 

[johncrossley]

I wonder if people would see the whole LTN thing differently if it was just called something like "cul de sac conversion" or something?

All it's doing is converting what were through roads into cul-de-sacs with walkways between them - a style of development that was very prevalent in the 70s. Are people calling for a house at the end of each cul-de-sac to be demolished to add a through road?

Is it just that people don't like change? Because just like "15 minute cities" about which there seems to be much protest*, you can still drive wherever you like in LTNs, you may just have to take a different route to get there.

* Milton Keynes is close to being a 15 minute city despite it being the best urban area in the UK for using a car, with high speed limits, cheap parking and very few restrictions. It's just about provision of local facilities so you don't *need* to drive, not anything to do with banning it.

It seems to be a mistake, giving an open goal to the right-wing media, to give these things labels.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It seems to be a mistake, giving an open goal to the right-wing media, to give these things labels.

It seems that the issue is indeed that - that everything is about polarisation.

They've been closing off through roads in older estates in favour of created cul-de-sacs for years, it's nothing new. It's very commonly done where people "rat running" cause issues for locals when the main road is congested and where the residential road isn't really wide enough for that amount of traffic. It's only recently that this has been done on a more systemic basis in some places and gained a label.

Similarly, most people would see a small supermarket, a doctor and dentist, a chippy and a primary school within walking distance (even if they choose to drive to it) convenient, not some sort of conspiracy. This has only become such when the tag "15 minute city" has become associated with falsehoods like suggestions people will be banned from driving to it.

 

[Falcon1200]

Your story seems to support the existence of LTNs and you have explained that misery has resulted from the removal of what was effectively a LTN.

Long before LTNs were a thing! And are cul-de-sacs likely to become LTNs, as they are as you point out already that anyway?

The point I was making was that removing traffic from one route is likely to increase it on another, unless the traffic that formerly used the LTN route disappears from the roads altogether; Which I believe is unlikely.

 

[jfollows]

Are LTNs a good thing? Is Sunak's intervention welcome?

Maybe, and no.
This stinks of central government devolving powers and then trying to take back control when they don't like what they do.
Like it or no, local government is that, and is responsible for LTNs and 20mph limits. I don't personally agree with most 20mph limits but that's my problem.
Rishi's problem is that he's interfering and should not. Local government is not the plaything of central government, but that's the appearance he gives. Live with it and shut up.

 

[johncrossley]

Long before LTNs were a thing! And are cul-de-sacs likely to become LTNs, as they are as you point out already that anyway?

In most cases there isn't room to connect cul-de-sacs to the main road at the current dead end. Your example was a very unlucky exception and wouldn't happen today.

The point I was making was that removing traffic from one route is likely to increase it on another, unless the traffic that formerly used the LTN route disappears from the roads altogether; Which I believe is unlikely.

You have to work on the basis that the LTN route never existed in the first place. Heavy traffic should never have been sent down the residential road in the first place. That was bad planning. Non-installation or removal of a LTN means you are failing to put right the mistakes of the past.

 

[jon0844]

Why can't people here understand that if you provide worthy alternatives to driving, people WILL give up their cars. Maybe not immediately, but eventually.

1. This doesn't mean people can't drive when they need a car (for moving lots of people or stuff).
2. When they do have to drive, if other people are on buses or cycling, there will be fewer cars and less traffic.
3. Every country that has done this has seen a drop in car use and less congestion, and yet people aren't forced into giving up their cars.
4. It isn't true that young people, old people or even those with disabilities can't cycle or use public transport.
5. It's actually pretty nice to have a residential street with few cars and the ability to walk, cycle or even play in the street (like we used to.. and isn't the whole Brexit thing about going back to the 'good old days'? Well, car free streets were once a thing!!)

Tell someone that they might want to cycle a bit and, like the anti-EV brigade, you'll be told that you can't cycle to Tesco to do your regular monthly shop, or take the kids to school or some other edge-case example. So many people drive when they absolutely don't have to, and that's what you're trying to help reduce - not force people out of their cars entirely.

Okay, some people might want to ban all cars but that's a step too far, and from other countries that are ahead of us you can see that isn't true. Plenty of people have a car still, but don't just use it for everything.

Maybe, and no.
This stinks of central government devolving powers and then trying to take back control when they don't like what they do.
Like it or no, local government is that, and is responsible for LTNs and 20mph limits. I don't personally agree with most 20mph limits but that's my problem.
Rishi's problem is that he's interfering and should not. Local government is not the plaything of central government, but that's the appearance he gives. Live with it and shut up.

I used to drive along Holloway Road many years ago and it was like a race track, and this weekend I saw just how calm it was in comparison to years gone by. Okay, it was a Sunday and just one small 'snippet' of experience, but perhaps due to cameras it seemed people were adhering to the 20mph limit, and I saw lots of cyclists. Okay, I also saw quite a lot of illegal e-bikes and e-scooters, but they were on the road and in a way, it seems to work better on calmer roads (and Holloway Road is multiple lanes!) and perhaps if you extended traffic calming schemes and LTNs more, you could actually legalise e-scooters by having them able to use roads and keep pavements clear.

Obviously the central London zones have excellent public transport options, which is not always the case elsewhere - but then the Government could decide to improve that!

 

[bramling]

Why can't people here understand that if you provide worthy alternatives to driving, people WILL give up their cars. Maybe not immediately, but eventually.

1. This doesn't mean people can't drive when they need a car (for moving lots of people or stuff).
2. When they do have to drive, if other people are on buses or cycling, there will be fewer cars and less traffic.
3. Every country that has done this has seen a drop in car use and less congestion, and yet people aren't forced into giving up their cars.
4. It isn't true that young people, old people or even those with disabilities can't cycle or use public transport.
5. It's actually pretty nice to have a residential street with few cars and the ability to walk, cycle or even play in the street (like we used to.. and isn't the whole Brexit thing about going back to the 'good old days'? Well, car free streets were once a thing!!)

Tell someone that they might want to cycle a bit and, like the anti-EV brigade, you'll be told that you can't cycle to Tesco to do your regular monthly shop, or take the kids to school or some other edge-case example. So many people drive when they absolutely don't have to, and that's what you're trying to help reduce - not force people out of their cars entirely.

Okay, some people might want to ban all cars but that's a step too far, and from other countries that are ahead of us you can see that isn't true. Plenty of people have a car still, but don't just use it for everything.



I used to drive along Holloway Road many years ago and this weekend I saw just how calm it was in comparison to years gone by. Okay, it was a Sunday, but perhaps due to cameras it seemed people were adhering to the 20mph limit, and I saw lots of cyclists. Okay, I also saw quite a lot of illegal e-bikes and e-scooters, but they were on the road and in a way, it seems to work better on calmer roads (and Holloway Road is multiple lanes!) and perhaps if you extended traffic calming schemes and LTNs more, you could actually legalise e-scooters by having them able to use roads and keep pavements clear.

Obviously the central London zones have excellent public transport options, which is not always the case elsewhere - but then the Government could decide to improve that!

I can’t help but think that to reach that point we will have to wait for the baby boom generation to die off. Pretty much everyone I know in that group is utterly wedded to car transport, and in many cases view it as a status symbol. I just can’t see that changing as it seems so ingrained.

As an aside this may well cause significant problems not too many years from now, as how many of these types will willingly give up driving when their health deteriorates?

 

[jon0844]

That's another good point I forgot, and that's a lot of young people aren't learning to drive. It's expensive to learn, and expensive to buy a car and insure it - and run it. Many people may have other priorities, like saving money for rent or simply not having enough disposable income.

So in a way, there will be less motorists as time goes on anyway.

 

[AndrewE]

In most cases there isn't room to connect cul-de-sacs to the main road at the current dead end. Your example was a very unlucky exception and wouldn't happen today.

Don't you believe it. Crewe is currently bulldozing a route for through traffic between 2 residential culs-de-sac in the middle of the town. See https://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/bus...generation-programme/flag-lane-link-road.aspx

They ignored objections (including mine which was objecting to the principle) and only said

3.4 Opposition to the scheme
3.4.1 Those we spoke to who opposed the scheme mostly lived in Bateman Close, Blount Close, Harrison Drive
or close to Flag Lane. The most common topic discussed in opposition of the scheme was that children
play on the grass that is currently in place joining Flag Lane with Bateman Close. Two young girls who
are residents near Flag Lane came along to the event to share that they do not want the scheme as they
currently play on the grass. A member of the public raised their concerns that the children could
potentially be at risk if they continue playing on the pavement. A member of the project team from
Cheshire East Council was present and involved this conversation. They agreed to look at the Cheshire
East Council estate to see if there is any land nearby that could be used as a play area and any cycle
paths that could be developed specifically for children.
3.4.2 Parking on the nearby roads to Flag Lane, on Harrison Drive, Bateman Close and Blount Close was a
concern raised amongst residents of the nearby streets. One member of the public requested that
double yellow lines are used along Harrison Drive, Bateman Close and the junction with Blount Close as
parking would displace to Bateman Close rather than the car parks

Dunwoody Way should have been built originally with a cycle and pedestrian link up to Flag lane, but requests for one from the groups consulted were ignored back then too. The Council have also allowed the currently-being-built multi-storey car park right in the town centre - now depleted of almost all shops of course! (It also shoves the bus station into a token strip further from the surviving shops in the town centre too, of course). Never mind that the associated multi-entertainment complex and shop development has already been abandoned, and that the similar entertainments off Dunwoody Way are also closed down.
They have been trying to get a multi-storey car park for the last 45 years to my knowledge. I suppose it is just coincidence that Cheshire East are now proposing to move their staff from a purpose-built office in Sandbach back to Wellington House in Crewe... right next to the new car park! Next I imagine they will want bigger roads and junctions to accomodate the traffic their car-commuting staff will cause. You couldn't make it up!

 

[341o2]

Why can't people here understand that if you provide worthy alternatives to driving, people WILL give up their cars. Maybe not immediately, but eventually.

1. This doesn't mean people can't drive when they need a car (for moving lots of people or stuff).
2. When they do have to drive, if other people are on buses or cycling, there will be fewer cars and less traffic.
3. Every country that has done this has seen a drop in car use and less congestion, and yet people aren't forced into giving up their cars.
4. It isn't true that young people, old people or even those with disabilities can't cycle or use public transport.
5. It's actually pretty nice to have a residential street with few cars and the ability to walk, cycle or even play in the street (like we used to.. and isn't the whole Brexit thing about going back to the 'good old days'? Well, car free streets were once a thing!!)

Tell someone that they might want to cycle a bit and, like the anti-EV brigade, you'll be told that you can't cycle to Tesco to do your regular monthly shop, or take the kids to school or some other edge-case example. So many people drive when they absolutely don't have to, and that's what you're trying to help reduce - not force people out of their cars entirely.

Okay, some people might want to ban all cars but that's a step too far, and from other countries that are ahead of us you can see that isn't true. Plenty of people have a car still, but don't just use it for everything.



I used to drive along Holloway Road many years ago and it was like a race track, and this weekend I saw just how calm it was in comparison to years gone by. Okay, it was a Sunday and just one small 'snippet' of experience, but perhaps due to cameras it seemed people were adhering to the 20mph limit, and I saw lots of cyclists. Okay, I also saw quite a lot of illegal e-bikes and e-scooters, but they were on the road and in a way, it seems to work better on calmer roads (and Holloway Road is multiple lanes!) and perhaps if you extended traffic calming schemes and LTNs more, you could actually legalise e-scooters by having them able to use roads and keep pavements clear.

Obviously the central London zones have excellent public transport options, which is not always the case elsewhere - but then the Government could decide to improve that!

I would like to see a demonstration of how somebody who has had one or both legs amputated is supposed to cycle

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would like to see a demonstration of how somebody who has had one or both legs amputated is supposed to cycle

Using a handcycle. Or a clipped shoe if they still have one leg, pushing and pulling alternately.

(Don't let's wheel out the RUK Standard Minority - clearly there are some people who can't cycle, but if you can drive, using an adapted car if necessary, you can probably cycle or wheel a wheelchair).

 

[jon0844]

I would like to see a demonstration of how somebody who has had one or both legs amputated is supposed to cycle

I've heard some random edge-cases to argue against cycling before, but this is a new one.

 

[biko]

If a LTN advocating resident still has a car themselves, it's just standard selfish nimbyism that makes up most suburban politics , rather than genuine environmental concern

No, why couldn’t one own a car while being against excessive car usage?

So not controversial?

No, ‘knips’ as they are called here (cutting a road literally) are generally not controversial. They are commonplace all over the country. Some people feel a bit inconvenienced for a month or so but afterwards nobody mentions it. The temporary blocking of a main road in Amsterdam is controversial however, but that’s on a main artery into the city centre and not some residential road.

And, furthermore, one presumes such residents never have any goods or services provided to them by road vehicles, either directly or indirectly. One assumes they never have any tradesman come to visit, nor any deliveries?!).

Being pro-LTN isn’t the same as being against all use of cars. It is about reducing car use and improving the living quality of an area.

The point I was making was that removing traffic from one route is likely to increase it on another, unless the traffic that formerly used the LTN route disappears from the roads altogether; Which I believe is unlikely.

Generally, the traffic partly changes to other modes, partly disappears and partly chooses another route. So the overall volumes on the full network reduce.

 

[GusB]

No, why couldn’t one own a car while being against excessive car usage?

Exactly. I own a car and I use it when other methods of travel are impractical. I live in a village where the last bus service into town is just after 7pm and there's no bus provision at all on Sundays. I tend to do a weekly shop in town with the car and if anything needs topping up I buy locally and I walk. Buying all my groceries locally is impossible because there simply isn't the range of items that I need, and if I was to use public transport it would need to be done over at least two trips because there's a limit to how much I can physically carry. Online shopping is an option and I'm lucky enough to have all four of the big supermarkets delivering to my location, but, quite frankly, I got fed up being at the mercy of the "substitution fairy".

Being pro-LTN isn’t the same as being against all use of cars. It is about reducing car use and improving the living quality of an area.

Even within LTNs, nobody is stopping anyone from using a car to get to work, or from having goods delivered to their home. The whole point is that your street isn't being used as a shortcut. I don't see that as being NIMBY - I just see it as wanting your neighbourhood to be as safe as possible. Of course, the moto-libertarians see this as an affront to their personal freedoms and anything that stands in their way must be resisted.

 

[341o2]

It seems that the issue is indeed that - that everything is about polarisation.

They've been closing off through roads in older estates in favour of created cul-de-sacs for years, it's nothing new. It's very commonly done where people "rat running" cause issues for locals when the main road is congested and where the residential road isn't really wide enough for that amount of traffic. It's only recently that this has been done on a more systemic basis in some places and gained a label.

Similarly, most people would see a small supermarket, a doctor and dentist, a chippy and a primary school within walking distance (even if they choose to drive to it) convenient, not some sort of conspiracy. This has only become such when the tag "15 minute city" has become associated with falsehoods like suggestions people will be banned from driving to it.

Are you aware of the proposals for Canterbury?
The plan is that the entire city will be divided into five zones, with ANPR cameras and restrictions on driving across zone boundaries.
You still can make the journey by driving out of the city, around a new ring road, and back in to arrive at your destination.
I am thankful I have no reason to visit Canterbury, let alone live there if this goes ahead.

 

[johncrossley]

You still can make the journey by driving out of the city, around a new ring road, and back in to arrive at your destination.

That sounds like Houten in the Netherlands, except they don't have car access across zones at all. Houten is often mentioned as the gold standard in town planning.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are you aware of the proposals for Canterbury?
The plan is that the entire city will be divided into five zones, with ANPR cameras and restrictions on driving across zone boundaries.

So? You can still drive where you want.

You still can make the journey by driving out of the city, around a new ring road, and back in to arrive at your destination.

Exactly.

I am thankful I have no reason to visit Canterbury, let alone live there if this goes ahead.

Why would this affect a visitor, who would simply go from the ring road to their destination?

 

[DustyBin]

As per usual the debate is becoming needlessly polarised....

LTNs can have a positive impact if implemented sensibly and appropriately. We have two near us, one "good" and one "bad". The first prevents people using two residential streets to bypass a busy junction, which I fully support (even though it doesn't benefit me personally). The second closes a small high street causing parking chaos nearby, and starving a handful of small businesses of custom. It's a failure and I expect it to be abolished at some point.

I'll add that I see this as nothing but desperate political opportunism from Sunak. He couldn't care less about motorists in my view, which is why despite being very pro-car I'm not speaking up in support of this review.

 

[cb a1]

I can just imagine the eye roll that the relevant Team Head in the DfT did on Sunday morning. There's another £250k of their revenue budget to be spent on dong a report that most people in the industry will be able to write the Executive Summary for over a morning with a good cup of coffee.

I suspect that this will be a perennial issue like 'induced traffic' and free PT. Induced traffic was first described over 100 years ago but every decade or so the government commission yet another report into whether it exists to try and buy themselves some time over some thorny issue - kicks the can far enough down the road till after the next election. Free PT is similar but with only a history going back 50 years.

On this topic, I'm aware that Cairns, Atkins and Goodwin did their first report on this in the late 90's and many studies in the UK and overseas done since. There may well be studies before Cairns et. al., but that's the first one I'm aware of.

My bullet point list of what I think it'll say:

• No clear definition of what an LTN is.
• Can be controversial, so consultation is important.
• Would cost £billions to reverse the last 50 years of implementation.
• Generally improves local places with better air quality and public realm.
• Generally have little wider impacts due to traffic evaporation.
• Outwith the competence of UK government as it's a local roads authority matter.

 

[SteveM70]

This stinks of central government devolving powers and then trying to take back control when they don't like what they do.
Like it or no, local government is that, and is responsible for LTNs and 20mph limits. I don't personally agree with most 20mph limits but that's my problem.
Rishi's problem is that he's interfering and should not. Local government is not the plaything of central government, but that's the appearance he gives

Seems to me that Sunk made a massive deal of his "five pledges", "people's priorities" or whatever the label was, and set himself a bunch of targets which he now realises are going to be very difficult or even impossible to deliver, so he's gone looking for other stuff to interfere with that he thinks will make him popular