Local resident Rishi Shah has reviewed Brent Council's Long Term Transport Strategy LINK in detail and has written to Cllr Krupa Sheth (Lead Member for Environment, Infrastructure and Climate Action) with his comments:
1. How many iterations did this document go through before the final version?
2. On Pages 4 and 5 the LTTS is described as a strategy between 2015 – 2035 yet all targets on page 36 are aimed at 2041. Why? How can a strategy be aimed between a certain time frame yet all key indicators and goals are set beyond that time limit?
a. Why are there no incremental targets between 2022 – 2041?
i. This allows consecutive failures and allows for a “Hope for the best by 2041” where you are relying on consumers changing their habits without incremental delivery
3. Page 4 – The document states “Services and a safe and pleasant cycle network” What does a pleasant cycle network mean? This is just an ambiguous word without any reference to it means for a cyclist
4. Cycle lanes/ Cycle networks are mentioned 14 times throughout the document yet no goal, metric or targets are attached – why not? If funding is a requirement as per appendix 3 then why has the £xxm Cost not been attached?
a. If you do not know the funding requirements, why not? Surely knowing how much something is going to cost will allow you to plan for the future adoption and budgeting of spend
b. Appendix 3 – “Expand the cycle network beyond planned schemes” – Why is a metric or target not attached to this? Something as simple as “We will expand the cycle network by xxKM/ Miles by dd/mm”
c. There is no mention of cycle lanes owned by TFL vs Council (E.g. Brook Avenue) – which the council enables anyone visiting the borough on NON event days the ability to park without fear of tickets, meanwhile there is an approved barrat homes building to be built in the station car park, thus introducing more people and cars to the street.
5. Page 7 – There is a mention of the LTTS public consultation and feedback yet no link to the raw data and findings, nor any references in the appendix. Why not?
a. There is no mention of the number of participants who responded, so %’s imo are hiding the reality, I suspect low response rate. Am I right?
6. Pages 8 – 11. All data is pre pandemic, in parallel the section on the impact of covid (page 11) is “travel in London” – do you not think this is confusing because you have Brent level data up to 2020 meanwhile reference London travel as a whole up to 2021. Surely this confuses the reader.
a. Is there not any local level data in Brent on traffic trends (obviously increasing in traffic build up), number of speeding fines, traffic infractions?
i. If not, why not? Why has the council not studied changes in levels of above?
7. The document seems to consistently not mention and clearly not understand the financial benefits of reducing traffic and car usage in the borough, by enabling less spend on road network maintenance thus freeing up spend and budgets for other initiatives. Why is this not taken into consideration? Surely its in the interest of the council to spend less on fixing pot holes
a. And the reduction of financial burden when actively travelling, e.g. A daily driver of a small city car would save £xx because of not using fuel. Etc.
8. Pages 14- 19 – Why has the doc not got any data, mapping or heat maps to show the worst polluted areas of Brent?
9. Page 21 – The only mention of CPZ’s yet there is no mention of areas that do not have them and the contribution of on street parking problems for residents, causing further traffic because all these non residents drive into the borough and have the ability to park anywhere for free. Why was none of this negative impact assessed or documented as a negative impact on each community/ local area? (Same as point 4 above). E.g. Parking on surrounding roads by both Wembley Park and Preston Road station. Surely a mention should be for Barrat homes development to fund this for 10 years, or an ask for them to do so as part of the CILs?
10.Pages 28-29 – The document mentions inclusive areas, but this is a disguised mis-truth. For example all the public areas around the Stadium are not public, they are privately owned with access to the public. Why has the document not made this obvious? Seems disingenuous because private security can ask you to leave thus making not inclusive.
11.There is no mention of parking on single and double yellow lines, no data on the number of parking fines on a daily, weekly, monthly or yearly average. Nor any data around whether they have increased or decreased over the past few years
12.There is no mention of initiatives and costs for example adding TFL bikes which I know require sponsorship but this will radically reduce car usage and increase active travel. Why has this type of initiative not been considered, costed with uptake predictions based on other boroughs?
13.Referenced data for London has been used, rather than the improvements boroughs in East London have seen through their initiatives and changes. Why were these not referenced?
14.What about bad/ dangerous driving? – I met with you on Elmstead Ave and you literally witnessed a car mount the pavement, drive through the pavement to get around a blocking vehicle.
My overall comment of this document is that it seems to be deliberately confusing, mixed data without any baselines nor references to most of the data are missing from the appendix. The biggest benefit to the council is a reduction of maintenance costs which has been omitted from this document without any clear reason why? A simple argument will be “If we reduce private vehicle usage we will reduce our £xx budget thus enabling spending in social care” or whatever, why have costs and benefits analysis not been completed?
My biggest concern is the performance targets and indicators which are not in the stated LTTS timeframe, and there are no indicators whether the council is on target or not YoY. This to me reads as if you are hoping for the best because consumers will change their habits – and sure in a small % they will, but without a YoY indicator whether the change is occurring means you are hiding from the facts, additionally cherry picked targets seem to have been used. Some missing data e.g. “Planting X trees will reduce CO2, Co2 reduction YoY etc etc etc”
On the subject of Brook Avenue, Barratt's redevelopment of the Wembley Park Station car park, just about to begin, will see half the width of the street outside the site taken over for a stack of site huts.
ReplyDeleteThe portacabins can't be put on the site itself, as all of that will be built over in this high-density overdevelopment. Pedestrians, cyclists and motorists will have disruption in Brook Avenue until at least 2025.
There will be a constant stream of lorries passing along the street in a one way direction, and workers controlling traffic to allow the lorries priority to deliver their supplies to the construction site. All of this was allowed for by conditions placed in the planning consent.
Thank you Rishi and Philip, Brent and their Carpetbagging friends don't care about the Borough, that's probably why "Brent suffers from one of the highest rates of residents earning less than the London Living Wage."
ReplyDeletePart one
ReplyDeleteHaving read this blog by Rishi I looked at the LTTS, I read Cllr Sheth's forward and was struck by the ineptitude of it and want to share my thoughts of the forward, I didn't see the point of reading more if the forward is what the LTTS is about. It is really sad that this lot are looking after Brent for the foreseeable future. Anyway, here goes, my comments are indented.
Brent Council and our partners are working hard to improve transport and travel in Brent.
• Who are the partners and what has been done to improve transport? Tubes and bus networks have not increased capacity, however Brent's population has increased by 10% in the last 10 years and most of these increases have been in very small locations putting severe pressure on the available public transport infrastructure. Many car free developments have been built, however, the residents still have private vehicles and have put excessive pressure on on street parking.
Together, we have implemented a range of schemes and initiatives in recent years, particularly aimed at promoting walking and cycling, improving air quality and reducing road casualties.
• What are these schemes and initiatives? They appear to have had aims of promoting walking and cycling and improving air quality and road causalities. No evidence has been provided so presumably the initiatives have failed?
However, despite good progress, we are acutely aware there are still considerable challenges to address.
• Why has this progress not been defined with evidential data?
This revised Long Term Transport Strategy (LTTS) outlines the Council’s priorities for delivering further improvements to the transport system in Brent. This includes tackling long-standing issues around congestion and poor air quality, which continue to blight some of most vulnerable communities; and to address wider issues around growing health and social inequalities and climate change.
• As there is no evidence of previous improvements how can you measure improvements going forward?
We also need to secure those transport improvements that are vital for delivering new housing and jobs in the borough, such as the West London Orbital rail link, whilst being mindful of the need to create sustainable, inclusive places.
• If it is vital to secure transport improvements for delivering new housing, why haven't the transport improvements been made while flat building goes on at unprecedented and unrestricted levels with no regards for infrastructure improvements, biodiversity and air quality? Why is the construction of so many flats so important? There is no evidence of the creation of long term employment initiatives within the borough? Why does Brent have one of the highest rates of employment below the London Living Wage? What are these sustainable inclusive spaces, are these the alleyways between the tower blocks with minimal biodiversity?
Part two
ReplyDeleteCentral to achieving this, and a cornerstone of this strategy, is a requirement to reduce significantly the number of journeys made by private vehicles, particularly for shorter journeys, whilst bringing about a step-change in the use of more active, efficient and greener modes of transport.
• While the south of Brent is very well served by public transport and the distances to the employment hub of central London are close at hand the result are low levels of private transport. However, the north of Brent is not well served by public transport and consequently there are expectedly high levels of private transport, in fact Brent's own Local Plan accepts that the north of Brent was designed and founded on private transport. Furthermore, the excessively large developments around Brent north's tube stations is creating unacceptable levels of overcrowding of public transport. During the COVID lockdowns the busiest tube stations were in the north of Brent. What are these active (cycling space in the north is minimal) walking distances are excessive compared to the south. What are these greener modes of transport if there is no cycle space and walking distances too long?
This will not be easy to achieve and will likely require some tough choices to be made.
• If you don't have solutions you don't have choices, hard or soft.
Certainly, if we are to see a repeat of the historically low levels of road traffic and significant increase in levels of walking and cycling experienced at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, at the very least we will need to make our streets and neighbourhoods much safer, healthier and more welcoming for pedestrians and cyclists and encourage people to think carefully about how they travel.
• A repeat of the historically low levels of road traffic and significant levels of walking and cycling at the start of Covid. Really, there were lock downs, traffic levels would go down, but why would this be repeated? Walking and cycling took off as the only form of exercise available, but most were not about travelling to a destination, they were just exercise and passing the time. How will a travel plan make the streets safer, surely that comes from increasing police presence on the streets and reducing poverty and overcrowding in the borough? A way to reduce private transport journeys would have been to build or extend schools in the correct locations. How does making streets welcoming make people think carefully about how they travel?
On schools - because secondary schools in the North of the Borough are already oversubscribed, Brent's planners said that children from big new developments like Capital Way could go to the new school planned for the Chancel House site in Neasden Lane. Can't see them walking there!
DeleteAren't north Brent secondary schools full because they provide for South Brent. Also the secondary population will fall very soon in the lower forms as the bulge passes through?
DeletePart three
ReplyDeleteWith this in mind, we have developed a strategy which includes a comprehensive package of interventions which we believe will help deliver our objectives whilst ensuring we achieve the overarching Borough Plan vision of ‘Building a Better Brent’.
• So far you have not defined anything that will improve the borough's transport, in fact you're probably making it worse by overcrowding, inappropriate located infrastructure such as schools, health centres and community hubs, and consequently putting carts before horses with all the excessive developments without transport improvements, closing streets to motor vehicles is not a solution. As for the Borough Plan, isn't that only just out to consultation, or is the consultation just going through the motions. As for building a better Brent, I think most residents would say you are making it worse and in the lowest quartile in London, in fact in the bottom three.
The strategy has taken into consideration wide ranging feedback as part of recent public consultation and stakeholder engagement exercises.
• What consultations were these and with who, It's all a bit of a joke isn't it.
Subject to the availability of funding, we aim to deliver vital new cycling and walking infrastructure and improvements to the street environment and public realm, targeted road safety improvements and casualty reduction measures, and greater provision for electric and other zero-emission vehicles.
• What is this VITAL new cycling and walking infrastructure? Where will they be placed and where do they go? Have you thought about the differences across the borough and the impassable obstacles such as London distributor roads, canals, industrial estates, railways etc, etc. What are these VITAL pieces of infrastructure? Nice words but no meaning in the real world. Street improvements, like repairing pavements, what a joke. Electric charging points for more vehicles, oh that's a good idea isn't it. Can you tell us what these zero-emission vehicles are, perhaps Amazon cargo lorries scaring park users and pedestrians to death, or that's the idea, reduce the population. Nearly forgot, Amazon don't pay the London Living Wage, so yet more Brent residents in poverty and overcrowding.
Above all, we are committed to ensuring that the proposals within the LTTS are delivered as they will make a real and lasting difference to those who live, work and do business in the borough.
• If only you had a though out plan that could achieve something other than hearing your echo and ruining Brent for the future.
When will Brent Council address the traffic congestion in Ealing Road Wembley? It's bad single everyday wirh numerous buses stuck in traffic - on event days it's is often at a complete standstill. And with a the developments by Alperton Station our side roads are hit by aggressively speeding drivers.
ReplyDeleteWhy are Brent not championing car share schemes? Thus is an easy way to reduce the number of cars on our roads.
Why have they built so many car parks around Wembley Stadium when this new Wembley Stadium was supposed to be a "public transport destination' - before after events local buses are all on diversion but surely the buses should be travelling on their normal routes with all the extra cars deterred from coming to the area?
Yes, plans are that 75% of children for the North Brent (sic) school at Chancel House will come from the North Wembley area. Given the nature of Neasden Lane if they tried to bike it pupil numbers would quickly reduce.
ReplyDeletehttps://wembleymatters.blogspot.com/2020/07/only-quarter-of-places-at-new-neasden.html
There's a lot of South-North pupiltravel at present but there has long been requests for a secular high school south of the North Circular in Brent. Probably going back to when Sladebrook was closed. Newland College is much more community minded that its predecessor and there is of course Capital City. The ironic thing is that although actually in South Brent, North Brent School being an adjunct of Wembley High, will only take 25% of pupils from the immediate Harlesden/Neasden area. All that travel is not very green and the 206 bus travelling from Wembley Park with Michaela, Ark and Preston Manor pupils to Harlesden at school home time is a nightmare at times. Best avoided. Lycee pupils tend to travel by tube towards central London. .
ReplyDeleteLong Term Transport Strategy Brent?
ReplyDeleteSouth Kilburn Stations Town (6000 in year 2001 to 30,000 by year 2041). It is interesting how clueless Brent Master Developer has been for 21 regeneration years as to what a 30,000 car-free town could be? Brent Plan is to double vehicle highways here, to build on its only small public open space because it's a 'brownfield?' And to build on this over 50-year-old parks two adjacent schools because they are also 'brownfields?'
Brent of de-populating and of hyper growth zonings, loves the strategic generic and South Kilburn Stations Town 45 hectares re-development is certainly recklessly disabled by Brent strategic generic mode regarding its Transport Strategy, Parks priorities and so much else.
Our beloved Council have certainly made a mess (complete ......) of things over the last 12 years plus, and not from a very good starting point. Time for a change at the top, but unfortunately the majority of councillors have sold their souls to the current leadership and are part of the problem.
ReplyDelete