Brent Scrutiny request key information on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

 

 Cllr Roxanne Mashari's Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee did a pretty thorough job on the Healthy Neighbourhoods (Healthy Neighbourhoods and School Streets) issue considering it came up under Topical Issues at their recent meeting without a report from officers.

The Low Traffic Neighbourhoods issue which has aroused controversy was inevitably the main focus and there was close questionning of Cllr Shama Tatler with minimal contributions from Cllr Krupa Sheth. Cllr Tatler admitted to problems with implementation and blamed these on government/TfL requirements and a rushed timeline. Left to itself Brent Council would not have approached it in this way, it was claimed.

Cllr Mashari quoted the detailed critique submitted by thye Brent Cycling Campaign.

You can hear the full meeting above and make up your own minds.  The main outcome was that Scrutiny requested a full breakdown of money spent on the schemes and the amount left to spend. In addition Scrutiny wanted a full account of the lessons learnt.The aim was that the objective, supported by the majority of residents for clean air and a healtheir neighbourhood, would be fulfilled by better planning, engagement and consultation.

On eve of Cabinet Brent Cycling Campaign tackle Muhammed Butt on his failure to properly plan and implement Low Traffic Neighbourhoods

 

p> 

'There's a sense the Council is not acknowledging its responsibility in the chaotic implementation and subsequent failure of this programme' - Brent Cycling Campaign on Healthy Neighbourhood schemes

 Reacting to the news that Brent Council officers are recommending the withdrawal of some of the Healthy Neighbourhood schemes in the borough, Brent Cycling Campaign said:

 

We are still reading through all the reports (19!), and we will have a better clarity on the overall picture soon. The first impression, however, is that there's a sense the Council is not acknowledging its responsibility in the chaotic implementation and subsequent failure of this programme. These interventions were never fully implemented, operational (beyond a couple of weeks in places) or even enforced but this has been completely omitted in the decision making process.  This is a rather large caveat to ignore.

As a result, it's difficult to draw meaningful, evidence led conclusions from them.  There also seems to be a stark difference, a contradiction even, between insights drawn from the engagement process and the result from quantitative data via the online consultation. Without knowing the unique responses numbers - as you could respond more than once, or what is the modal split among respondents, it is hard to tell whether or not the online consultation is genuinely representative of residents' views. This is an important point, given that seems to be the main basis on which officers made their recommendation. As evidence shows, after the introduction of such measures, people start thinking whether or not some driven trips could be made differently as more choices become available to them. Driving is no longer seen as the default option for short local trips and people feel supported by a new enabling environment. But this happens gradually so it is expected that they may not be agreeable at first because they are the ones asked to make the biggest change.

The schemes were meant, and indeed funded, to be live trials with engagement and modifications during the consultation period. Instead, rather than engage with the process, many councillors either remained silent, not communicating about the trials or vocally encouraged residents to petition against them straight from the start.

We have no doubt that future schemes will be proposed, because the council knows they will have to tackle the many negative impacts of a car-centric environment, as part of the response to the climate emergency they declared.  Residents want safe, healthy, quiet streets as well as clean air and low traffic neighbourhoods achieve that when done right alongside other supporting measures to enable people to switch to more sustainable modes of transport.

All in all, the way things have gone, this feels like a waste of public money, a waste of people's time and hopes for a better future.

 

 

 

Residents' petition urges Brent Council to toughen up and implement Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in Kilburn, Queens Park and beyond

 

With so much negative comment about Healthy Neighbourhoods (Low Traffic Neighbourhoods) on social media some Brent residents have hit back with a petition in FAVOUR of them, calling on Brent Council to show determination in seeing the policy through.

PETITION HERE

The Petition reads:

We the undersigned demand that the Council take account of the views of residents and our families living in and near the Kilburn and Queens Park Healthy Neighbourhoods and beyond who support the proposed traffic filters, providing safer and cleaner streets.

We support Brent council policies to:

• improve air quality
• reduce traffic
• increase active travel and provide safer space for cycling
• improve physical and mental health
• protect children and people of all ages from road danger
• reduce noise and air pollution 
• improve community relations.

We are all negatively impacted in  our local area  by the damaging effect of motor vehicles  freely cutting through the residential streets . We ask that Brent Council address this situation as a matter of urgency  listen to those who support  low traffic schemes .

We urge Brent Council to have the determination to follow through and stand by their own Healthy Neighbourhood schemes and expect our elected Councillors to take a progressive, forward thinking view of our environment and communities. 

If not addressed now while the resources are available and the Government supports it, the problems will only get worse as an ever -growing population in Brent own cars. 

Labour promises in 2020 were to make England one of the most cycling and walking friendly places in the world. Now we expect Brent Councillors to help make that happen so our lives and our children's lives aren't blighted by pollution, road rage and car dominance.

Cllr Tatler's speech on the Healthy Neighbourhood schemes

Cllr Shama Tatler, Lead member for Regeneration, has circulated her speech at the Extraordinary Meeting of the Council on Healthy Neighbourhoods on social media. It contrasts with the speech made by Cllr Butt. I reproduce the speech below:

Brent Friends of the Earth's views on Healthy Neighbourhoods ahead of Friday's Full Council

Brent Friends of the Earth were unlucky in not getting a place to speak to Full Council on Friday when they debate Healthy Neighbourhoods but this is the position that they generally support on what are more widely known as Low Traffic Neighbourhoods:

Bullet points on Low Traffic Neighbourhood schemes:

• Roads have previously been made for cars, not people. We need to change this relationship and give space to people, cyclists and walkers so that we can all travel healthily and in a low carbon way where possible. 
  
• Research shows that LTN doesn’t cause more traffic on other roads: 
• Research shows that low-traffic neighbourhoods do not simply shift traffic from one place to another,  but lead to an overall reduction in the numbers of motor vehicles on roads. There was a 11% reduction in number of vehicles across the whole area where road space for traffic was reduced, including the main roads in a study of 70 areas across 11 Countries.  
• Just one year after the implementation of schemes in Outer London, including Waltham Forest, residents were walking 32 minutes and cycling on average 9 minutes more per week. 
• Points taken from this article, and more information there too.  
• Main roads need changes too, such as 2-way roads becoming 1-way and 20mph zones to reduce air pollution.  
• If there is an adverse increase of traffic on main roads, then road Boulevards can be a solution. These provide wider pavements, space for buses, reduced right turns, more trees and parking restrictions to reduce air pollution from these roads.  
• It’s vital that Councils conduct proper consultation with a wide variety of residents about Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, and issues must be looked at holistically across the area. This can help ensure that residents share their knowledge about where traffic is an issue and what knock-on effects this might have. No community should be disproportionally negatively affected in terms of air pollution.   
• The aim is to reduce the need for cars for short journeys. This can only be achieved with changes to public transport, cycling and walking routes. There is inevitably going to be some teething problems in making these changes, but with affordable public transport and safe cycling and walking routes, this will lead to healthier and safer neighbourhoods. 
• Evaporating traffic? Impact of low-traffic neighbourhoods on main roads - Stats show that LTN doesn’t cause more traffic on others roads, and calls for Boulevards as a solution to main roads 
• Low Traffic Neighbourhoods measures should be introduced as trials then effects can be monitored and changed if necessary  
• Modal shift may take some time to materialise but by reallocating space from cars to walking and cycling it will lead to some traffic evaporation.  
• We need alternatives – eg safe cycling infrastructure on main roads, 2 way becoming 1 way – so everybody gains somehow. There should be measures on main roads too – these will depend on local circumstances but could include protected cycle lanes, one-way systems, safe crossings (20 mph zones? CAZ?) – can we say any more about what this mitigation for residents on main roads already suffering high air pollution could look like?
• Ultimately need more reallocation of roadspace on side roads and main roads to reduce traffic and reduce air pollution. 
• We don’t want to entrench poor air pollution in disproportionately affected communities – should be more in a balance of neighbourhoods