Forum Topic

LTNs make it 'harder' for Met police to reach destination

Dame Cressida Dick, hey what would she know about it ?https://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/19302815.ltns-make-harder-met-police-reach-destination/Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) sometimes make it “harder” for officers to get to their destinations as quickly as they previously could, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick said.Brought in under emergency Covid-19 measures, LTN's have seen modal filters blocking through-traffic with barriers that are physically or camera enforced deployed in neighbourhoods across London.Concerns have already been raised about the potential for the environmental scheme to delay ambulances, as reported in Lee Green before its LTN was scaled back in September.Cressida Dick told LBC’s Nick Ferrari on Friday: “What is trying to be balanced for our city is, on the one hand, this great desire in ‘vision zero’ to reduce the number of road deaths to zero, to make this a city in which people are safer to walk and cycle, and to also improve our environment.“In a sense, the latter is not for me."But I am aware that these measures, which are designed to do all those things, can and do slow down all traffic, and they deter people from driving, and that’s part of the point.“But, on occasion, it is of course harder for our officers to get through streets and roads that they could previously get through much faster.“I am looking at it carefully and, on occasion, we will have a conversation with Transport for London to point out where a particular thing will cause real difficulties.”The London Ambulance Service said it had received 11 reports from crews about delays linked to the LTN in Lewisham, all of which it shared with the counc

Mark Perry ● 1991d74 Comments

Only common sense which the LCC seems to totally lack. There is a cover-up going on.

Claire Moran ● 1991d

Clarabel, yet another of your tedious jibes detected !Do you know why you do it ? Is it because you're not very happy with your lot ? Whatever it's very sad my dear !

Chris Vessey ● 1991d

what do you mean by this ChrisClarabel, yet another of your tedious jibes detected !

Bernard Allen ● 1991d

Cressida Dick is correct: "on occasion" a physical barrier will produce a delay if it is on the quickest route to an incident. And she is also correct that these barriers "deter people from driving", leading to less traffic to negotiate to get to an incident. You need a statistical analysis of thousands of events to see how these two competing influences contribute to response times.We have just that from the recently published analysis of the response of the fire service to incidents across London, comparing the comparative delays before and after LTN's were introduced. The conclusion was straightforward:"Fire crews reported more delays due to ‘traffic calming measures’ in LTNs, but this was entirely offset by a decrease in delays for other reasons, particularly ‘traffic’. This was true both in LTNs that predominately blocked motor traffic using physical barriers (e.g. planters) and in LTNs using camera enforcement. These findings add to evidence that LTNs do not adversely affect emergency response times."https://findingspress.org/article/23568-the-impact-of-2020-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-on-fire-service-emergency-response-times-in-london-uk

Tom Pike ● 1991d

Cressida Dick seems pretty comfortable with the twin purposes of LTNs being to protect lives and to improve the environment and she also seems quite comfortable with the established process that is in place for the Met to communicate with TfL in the event of any specific concerns with individual schemes:"on occasion, we will have a conversation with Transport for London to point out where a particular thing will cause real difficulties.” No drama, no appeals to the judiciary, no playing victim. No Oneness in other words. Not that that will stop the One lot and the Mail/Telegraph/Times from grasping at yet another straw.

Paul Campbell ● 1991d

Of course, for the increasing number of coppers and PCSOs on bikes...

Ken Munn ● 1991d

Hi Bernard, what is LCC please ? There is a chance I might have got the wrong end of the stick. If so then it's  more outpouring of "Sorry, sorry, sorry" to Clarabel. We shall see.

Chris Vessey ● 1991d

ChrisLCC stands for London Cycling Camaign

Bernard Allen ● 1991d

We had another recent publication on crime rates in LTNs that concluded:"Overall crime trends in and around LTNs were more favourable than the background trend in Outer London, and similar to or slightly more favourable than the trend in Inner London. This pattern was also seen for numbers of direct attacks against the person - and this may underestimate the benefit per pedestrian, given evidence that LTN introduction is associated with increased walking."It looks like a win-win all round, safer and lower traffic neighbourhoods.https://findingspress.org/article/23623-short-term-association-between-the-introduction-of-2020-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-and-street-crime-in-london-uk

Tom Pike ● 1991d

And far higher pollution for those living on the boundary roads not that the LTNs in Ealing matter obviously as Ealing conveniently removed the diffusion tube pollution monitors immediately prior to LTN introduction. Fortuitously and with commendable foresight a number of residents implemented their own monitors which show increased NOX and particulate pollution. Still, if a few selfish residents are content that's all that seems to matter isn't it?Were they a broadly accepted solution then the response on LBEs own feedback system Commonplace would not show a c.80% rejection rate. Nor would 3000 people have undertaken a Covid-safe march on the Town Hall. Of course, the pro-cycling lobby (it is NOT a cycling-centric issue but they appear to lack the intellectual bandwidth to see this) reject the feedback from Commonplace and two surveys as self selecting. Online petitions show around 1100 people in favour (the 'pro' petition was actively promoted by LBE) whereas the petition effectively calling for consultation and scheme adaptation has gathered a mere 12,100 signatures.

N V Brooks ● 1991d

Finally, it was obvious the Emergency Services were gagged, but they have very finally realised how stupid they were looking or perhaps lives being put at risk eventually pricked their conscience. We’re getting there. I see the end of LTNs and the High Road cycle lane. I no longer read any of the cycle zealots comments just so you know.

Maggie Dodge ● 1991d

Thankfully, not all cyclists are in favour of such schemes as was best evidenced by the sheer number who joined the protest walk to Ealing Town Hall.

N V Brooks ● 1991d

In Ealing's Interim Assessment the data sources to be used in the final assessment are listed. These include main/boundary road air quality from the permanent monitoring sites and internal road air quality from NOx diffusion tubes.

Tom Pike ● 1991d

Bernard, Yes Clare was discrediting LCC London Cycling Campaign so I rest my case. I tend to take the line that cycling and all cyclists are perfect human beings and my defence of the sport and those who participate is paramount. I won't hear a bad word against them without fighting back !!

Chris Vessey ● 1991d

MD well in that case we won't read any of your inappropriate comments, so there !!!

Chris Vessey ● 1991d

Which have been removed and not replaced. Two key monitoring sites at Boston Gardens and Uxbridge Road have been decommissioned. As such, there can be no comparative data as no basline data was recorded.This was alluded to by two councillors. Therfore, Ealing are lying if they claim baseline data. The diffusion tube sites are clearly listed and none  are (or now, were) on the LTN boundary roads.

N V Brooks ● 1991d

I am not sure why LTNs would have much effect on crime rates, remember it is not enough to show correlation you also have to show causation - whilst it could be the case that the availability of fast vehicular access/egress is a cause of differences in crime rates between different areas, personally I just do not see it.

Justin Stephenson ● 1991d

Kris, you really need to take a very, long hard look at yourself. You really don't come across as a balanced, rational person - in fact a pretty nasty one.

Claire Moran ● 1991d

Surely crime rates have dropped due to so many people being at home. Burglars like empty property. I’m surprised they didn’t claim furlough.

Vivienne Cox ● 1991d

They also like silent streets with no one around so they can burgle the properties in that street or mug people, with no witnesses.

Claire Moran ● 1991d

Yes, it looks like crime rates dropped during the first lockdown:https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingjune2020If fire engines can get through, police cars ought to be OK.  If there's data showing the opposite, then that would be interesting.

Ed Saper ● 1991d

So here we have Cressida Dick saying LTNs create delays.Here we have a clip from Tom Pike: Fire crews reported more delays due to ‘traffic calming measures’ in LTNsAnd here we pretty much have something akin to the NY Post saying Trump is a god and the election rigged: findingspress.org.

David Lesniak ● 1991d

Always been a tricky fellow, Jonny sociology of crime. Good to see they’ve finally cracked that nut after so many have tried and failed. Who would have thought it would happen with data gathered in a pandemic too. I expect Nobel prizes will be due for work of such academic, scientific rigour. Not to mention, more research grants.

Russell Pearson ● 1991d

There are four diffusion-tube monitoring stations marked on the LTN boundary: Ealing Broadway, Uxbridge Road, Boston Gardens and Northfields Avenue.https://www.londonair.org.uk/london/reports/2019_Annual_Status_Report_Final.pdf

Tom Pike ● 1991d

This is a comparative drop in crime in LTNs compare to other areas. Both dropped after the LTNs were introduced, but crime dropped significantly more inside the LTNs. One possible reason for the drop are that LTNs prevent both easy access and the ability to make a fast exit after committing a crime. The other is that more people walking rather than in cars acts as a deterrent.Whatever might be the cause, LTNs have so far experienced comparatively lower crime rates than other areas over the same period.

Tom Pike ● 1991d

The Boston Gardens and Uxbridge Road diffusion tube sites were decommissioned  prior to LTN introduction NO baseline data was collected making any 'comparative' data a work of fiction.

N V Brooks ● 1991d

So that would leave two pollution monitors on Ealing Broadway and Northfields Avenue, both on the borders of the LTN.

Tom Pike ● 1991d

Clarabel darling, I must be your mirror image therefore !

Chris Vessey ● 1991d

Clarabel, you seem to know all about it, why is that ? Do you have a criminal record ?

Chris Vessey ● 1991d

Let’s just hope the crims don’t all get bikes then :-)

Ed Saper ● 1991d

Wouldn't it make more sense to review all roads that have been closed off / blocked to through traffic, rather than just the ones that have been implemented in the last year or so? I'd imagine traffic flow and emergency response times might be improved if some of the roads closed years ago were re-opened instead of some of the newer restrictions.  Just a thought. 

Rob Reynolds ● 1990d

Clutching at straws a bit to commend LTNs with crime reduction. Overall crime in London is down 8%, knife crime down by 21% and violent crime by 25%. These figures measure from January 2020 well before most LTNs were implemented.

N V Brooks ● 1990d

You are a humourless, emotionally stunted, dim fool, Kris Vesey, and a deeply unpleasant one. You try to slur the character of anyone who disagrees with you. Ugh.....

Claire Moran ● 1990d

There was a thread that discussed this point - which of the older LTNs should be adjusted or reopened to through traffic.The point was that no-one was prepared to demand long closed roads were turned into chipster runs for motorists looking to cut a few minutes off their journeys.  If you're happy with LTNs it skewered the argument that all the new LTNs were wrong if all the old ones were OK.    Basically, you just had to wait until residents got used to having quiet roads and there's no constituency for diverting traffic down them.If you're pro LTNs, then the argument is that these historic ones were put in place following due process, consultation and on the wishes of local residents, so they should be exempt.The issue with the latter is that all the arguments about displacement of traffic to main roads / other roads should also hold, so why shouldn't they all be on the table?If you know Paxton Road, it is only accessible from the A4, it is one way and there's a forced left turn at the end of it - so basically you have to use Hogarth Roundabout to both enter and exit.  If it was the other way round, it would be a v. attractive cut through so drivers on Burlington could skip the roundabout.  No-one's going to go for that, although if it had only just been closed off, it would be one of the roads that people would be petitioning to keep open.(In fact you would probably prefer to reopen Dukes Avenue (part of Chiswick House grounds) instead of Paxton if everything is on the table.)But there is an argument for using an ANPR camera on Paxton and reverse the flow, so the residents can potentially skip Hogarth on entry and exit.Given the new technology available and legitimate concerns about emergency vehicle access, it would make sense to review existing LTNs - to upgrade them ideally and in some cases, if they're now part of a larger LTN, remove local restrictions and barriers.However, if the review is just to remove restrictions in order to flood long closed roads with cut through traffic, I suspect that those who are opposing all the current traffic changes will find themselves in a quandary.

Ed Saper ● 1990d

So, Rob, that gets us to old LTNs bad, new LTNs good.Why? Because their on your street? They're the straw that broke the camel's back?When last we checked an ambulance would make significantly better time responding on "A" roads versus weaving a rat run down Homefield to turn on Beverly to get to Chiswick Lane. Although it would be fun to disrupt Jeremy Vine's sleep patterns. Oh the irony of that would be simply delicious - after all his "advocacy" having a new rat run drive past his door. I vote for that.Your point pretty much gets us to LTNs are bad altogether if they have a use by date. Putting your finger in the hole in the dyke doesn't seal up the other cracks. It pretty much proves the displacement theory, not the evaporation theory of traffic. What is hole-y is the logic. I'll give you that.

David Lesniak ● 1990d

Here are the changes on the crime rates from before and after the LTNs were introduced in outer London.All crime excluding antisocial behaviour:LTN and adjacent areas: -17.2%Non-LTN surrounding areas: -10.3%Other areas: -11.0%Direct attacks on person:LTN and adjacent areas: -8%Non-LTN surrounding areas: -0.1%Other areas: -1.7%Antisocial behaviour:LTN and adjacent areas:+66.4%Non-LTN surrounding areas: +68.3%Other areas: +77.1%LTN's saw either larger falls or smaller increases in each category of crime than other areas.https://findingspress.org/article/23623-short-term-association-between-the-introduction-of-2020-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-and-street-crime-in-london-uk?attachment_id=59585

Tom Pike ● 1990d

Clare, why are you so bloody rude. Did your mother not teach you any manners ? Obviously NOT ! There is still time to mend your ways maybe.

Chris Vessey ● 1989d

Yes, yes, yes - we all know that people living in LTN's are now living in Nirvana at great cost to everyone else. Are there any stats to show mental anguish increases of people suffering due to the, largely unwanted, LTN's imposed without democratic process? 

Steve Taylor ● 1989d

Steve we are all living in one giant carpark, let's get rid of our cars and breathe again !

Chris Vessey ● 1989d

Data accuracy falls at the first hurdle I'm afraid putting all of the data in doubt. MPS claim that overall crime is down between 8-10.3% (depending on data capture period) nothing like the "17.2%" reduction claimed and even if averaged the inaccurate data would show a reduction of almost 13%. Far  higher than the MPS have recorded.AFAIK crime data is only recorded down to LSOA level so it is simply not possible to include/exclude LTN areas as both may exist in an LSOA.

N V Brooks ● 1989d

The 17.2% fall is just for street crime excluding anti-social behaviour in LTNs in outer London. You can't compare that with the reduction in overall crime for all of London to make the claim that as the two figures don't match, the 17.2% figure must be inaccurate.The LSOA's won't match the LTN boundaries precisely, so the analysis included any LSOA with a portion inside an LTN. That would lead to an underestimate of the difference but there was still a significant improvement for these LSOA's at least partially inside LTN's.

Tom Pike ● 1989d

You cannot possibly claim any accuracy for the data I am afraid. If is is based on crime levels within LSOAs then to make any claim about the effect on levels of an LTN then the data must drill down to individual street or indeed part of a street in many cases.  The MPS data simply does not deliver this level of accuracy so any data is either extrapolated or simply estimated and,as such, should not be used or should, at the very least, have a clear warning as to its accuracy.

N V Brooks ● 1989d

Not at all David. I was just wondering if it gets us to:  LTNs or road schemes should perhaps be viewed holistically rather than at a granular level.  And it is 'they're', not 'their'. I make no apology for the use of nonsense management consultant words btw. In fact, I'm quite proud of them. 

Rob Reynolds ● 1989d

The data has been neither extrapolated or estimated. The analysis compares the crime rates directly from those LSOA's that contain LTN's and those that don't. LSOA's that include LTNs have significantly lower crime trends. This difference has a 1 in 1000 probability of occurring by chance. That's a very thin straw you're trying to grasp.

Tom Pike ● 1989d

I'm sorry but you really cannot claim that. LSOAs contain multiple streets which may or may not be totally encompassed by an LTN.An LSOA does not differentiate. Therefore any data has either to be extrapolated or estimated and the data is , as a consequence inaccurate.You really need to find an accurate data source.

N V Brooks ● 1989d

I looked at my own postcode in the three adjoining postcodes which all form a single LSOA. The four postcodes comprise around 500 households.One postcode has only one house inside an LTN, one postcode is Wholly outside the LTN, one postcode is wholly inside and the fourth postcode is equally divided by an LTN boundary. It is this that makes a mockery of trying to use LSOAs as a basis for crime statistics of in the context of LTNs.

N V Brooks ● 1989d

I looked at my own postcode in the three adjoining postcodes which all form a single LSOA. The four postcodes comprise around 500 households.One postcode has only one house inside an LTN, one postcode is Wholly outside the LTN, one postcode is wholly inside and the fourth postcode is equally divided by an LTN boundary. It is this that makes a mockery of trying to use LSOAs as a basis for crime statistics of in the context of LTNs.

N V Brooks ● 1989d

I'm not claiming this - it is stated in the paper:  "For this analysis we identified whether each LSOA was partially or wholly inside a 2020 LTN (group A). We also identified two overlapping comparison groups: (B) LSOAs that did not intersect with an LTN but were in a surrounding area with a boundary <500m from a 2020 LTN, or (C) LSOAs that did not intersect with an LTN and were anywhere in London."All the LSOA's that intersected with an LTN were in group A, and the full data for that LSOA was used with no estimation or extrapolation. The average crime rates for LSOA's which contained LTN's were significantly lower than those that did not when compared over the same period.

Tom Pike ● 1989d

This work adopts a standard approach which is necessarily used to geographically analyse crime data as incidents are grouped by LSOA. If you think you have found a fundamental flaw with such an approach which was overlooked by peer review,  I suggest you write to the journal clearly expressing your objections.

Tom Pike ● 1989d

"let's get rid of our cars and breathe again"Except for Chris, who keeps his in the front garden to be used as and when he needs to shop.

David Lesniak ● 1989d

Your acceptance that the data model is flawed is good enough for me thank you.  Take the model and those who use it to support their arguments with a large pinch of salt. End of my contribution

N V Brooks ● 1989d

Flawed data model. Interesting 🤔

Maggie Dodge ● 1989d

David, the car has gone, sold last night. So all shopping will be delivered from now on. Sorry to disappoint !

Chris Vessey ● 1989d

No, you've have just failed to grasp the basis of the analysis. For example, consider if all woods that contained a substantial proportion of a particular species of tree showed a higher level of die back compared to woods that contained none of that species. You would be mistaken to ignore this difference by arguing that until you knew exactly which tree had died back, the result was meaningless.You are making the same mistake, and rejecting a standard statistical approach used across many fields of study purely on the basis that it doesn't come up with the answer you expected.

Tom Pike ● 1989d

That you have accepted that the modelling approach used is fundamentally flawed by needing ever more explanation as to its vagaries is good enough. Thank you Tom.

N V Brooks ● 1989d

No, that's not the challenge in this case!

Tom Pike ● 1989d

Oh, I do believe it is. Very much like the "which straw shall I grasp at next to try to support my Pro-LTN position?"

N V Brooks ● 1988d

This publication is another piece of evidence that LTN's are associated with a reduction in crime. There has been no research published that has provided evidence to the contrary.This is very reminiscent of the objections to the research that built the evidence for climate change. Standard statistical approaches were questioned on spurious grounds by those who wanted to cast doubt on the work. You are doing exactly the same in a different context.A few climate-change deniers continue to make their objections, but they are now overwhelmingly ignored.

Tom Pike ● 1988d

Indeed, another piece of evidence based on a flawed model. A little like the LCC claim that there is overwhelming support for LTNs in their current form and that those who desire proper consultation to ensure that traffic reduction measures are implemented carefully paying due regard to the wishes of residents are a "noisy minority".  I guess if you can claim that when, in Ealing at least, the rejection rate hovers at around 70% on independent platforms and closer to 80% on the council's own feedback model, you will gladly seize on any piece of 'research' that supports your position.Please do note that I have avoided the term 'self-selecting' a favourite, if inaccurate, 'mantra' of the LCC and similar groups when even simple yes/no data does not deliver the result that meets their position.

N V Brooks ● 1988d

Rob, I'll consider my knuckles rapped. At least I was 50/50 prior to the coffee kicking in, but glad it gave you some joy.I've been advocating for holistic measures for years now. So on that point, we agree.

David Lesniak ● 1988d

It wasn't until I saw the other thread that I realised that I have seen the police driving through the barriers of an LTN and I understand from reading elsewhere that they can do this.  So the "LTNs make it 'harder' for Met police to reach destination" means that it is just that they have to slow down a bit more to negotiate the easy to drive through gap!

Philippa Bond ● 1988d

Not all LTNs have a gap that can be driven through. As example locally Phillipa is Occupation Lane, it is in Ealing but Hounslow has closed it with two large concrete blocks with no vehicular access. This has extended the journey time for emergency service vehicles approaching from the west or north (where the nearest ambulance, police and fire stations are located by at least two miles including a now permanent detour along the A4. Also makes it increasingly difficult for the predominantly elderly or disabled visitors to the rehabilitation centre at Clayponds Rehabilitation Unit.

N V Brooks ● 1988d

Who among us doesn't mind a delayed arrival in an emergency situation?Loved one gasping for air? Cardiac arrest? Fire? Stroke?What's a few extra minutes of watching someone you love suffer? Or suffering yourself.Small price to pay.

David Lesniak ● 1988d

So the significantly faster response times for the emergency services in the LTNs should obviously be an important consideration.

Tom Pike ● 1988d

But you're still using motorised transport to get your shopping ! I trust you see the irony

Loraine Pemberton ● 1988d

Loraine yes very extremely ironic. Shall probs fix trailer to the bike and do it the old fashioned way daily. That should fix it !?

Chris Vessey ● 1988d

Personally I'd go for a Pony and Trap !

Loraine Pemberton ● 1988d

So for those where moronic planning has left no motor vehicle access at all.Visions of the Trumpton fire brigade arriving on a fleet of bicycles; that would surely please some zealots.

N V Brooks ● 1988d

We don't seem to have had as many helicopters flying over that area in the middle of the night.  Maybe the car chases have moved elsewhere?  Ascott Avenue perhaps?

Philippa Bond ● 1987d

Coming soon to an LTN near you
Firefighters Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble, and Grub will be in attendance.

N V Brooks ● 1987d

Coming soon to an LTN near you
Firefighters Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble, and Grub will be in attendance.

N V Brooks ● 1987d

Loraine, that's a brilliant idea, where do you recommend I get this from. We have a field for its pasture too. Thank you !

Chris Vessey ● 1987d

Indeed, Tom. So long as the people in an LTN are safe, fu*k the rest of them. What lovely logic you have.

David Lesniak ● 1987d

Seems as if south London has had it's fill of LTN's as well - https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/protesters-rebel-against-cash-cow-ltn-croydon-b936159.html

peter king ● 1985d