Social and Environmental Justice UK

Ten years since the Vision for Cycling in London, what has been achieved? 9th April 2023

Thu, 18 May 2023 10:35:17 GMT

SEJ Comment: TfL’s own research shows, that hasn’t happened yet: affluent white males in their mid-twenties to mid-forties have continued to be the main beneficiaries of cycling policy with very limited signs of other categories of Londoners joining them.

LTNs don’t get top billing in TfL’s cash settlement with boroughs 27th March 2023

Sat, 08 Apr 2023 18:55:22 GMT

LTNs don't get top billing in this year’s cash - £63 million - given by Transport for London to the London boroughs which manage 95% of London’s streets. There appears to be swing to bus priority, school streets & pedestrian crossing along with a load of cycle lanes. There are just 5 new LTNs listed. Early days but has London past peak LTN?

For more detail: https://tfl-newsroom.prgloo.com/news/londons-boroughs-awarded-more-than-gbp-63-million-in-funding-to-make-streets-healthier-and-safer-for-all

(Note: this is a TfL press release so puts its angle on the announcement)

But no TfL money for Tower Hamlets 23rd March 2023

Sat, 08 Apr 2023 18:55:19 GMT

No money will be given to Tower Hamlets as part of the TfL settlement Tower because of its concerns that borough mayor Lutfur Rahman (above) is about to remove a number of LTNs in the borough. His party, ASPIRE, made the removal of LTNs a key part of its election manifesto at the last local elections when it defeated the pro-LTN Labour Party.

For more detail: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/tower-hamlets-funding-loss-lutfur-rahman-b1070138.html

Havering: no plans for LTNs 23rd March 2023

Sat, 08 Apr 2023 18:55:16 GMT

Havering Council in East London has no plans for low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) in the borough, cabinet member for environment, Cllr Barry Mugglestone, told a full council meeting on March 22 ^nd .

For more detail: https://www.romfordrecorder.co.uk/news/23406708.havering-council-no-plans-ltns-borough-meeting-told/?ref=twtrec

23 ^rd March 2023

Petitions Committee not satisfied 23rd March 2023

Sat, 08 Apr 2023 18:55:14 GMT

The Petitions Committee of the House of Commons has written to the Government to say it considers its response to the petition calling for "an independent review into Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs)” is inadequate. The Government had responded to the original petition, signed by over 10,000 people, by saying it had appointed the Active Travel Unit at Westminster University to do a review. Many queried its independence given the fact that it carried out a lot of the research that would be reviewed.

For details of the Petition: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/632748

Left-Behind Londoners March 2023

Sat, 08 Apr 2023 18:55:11 GMT

1.5 million Londoners are being left behind by a digital-first approach to transport.

1 in 6 people in London say they are unable to buy a ticket as they can’t use or don’t have access to a smartphone or internet connection.

1 in 5 Londoners say they have paid more for travel because they are not able to buy tickets online or by using mobile apps.

For more detail: https://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/campaigns/digital-exclusion/

Bike sales fall to their lowest level for 20 years 19th March 2023

Sat, 08 Apr 2023 18:55:08 GMT

SEJ backs cycling, so take no pleasure in the news bike sales fell to their lowest level for 20 yrs. Recent investment in cycling may yet bear fruit but the findings re-enforce recent TfL research that LTNs are only having a limited impact on numbers cycling.

Bike sales have dipped to their lowest level in two decades as the pandemic boom in cycling turns to bust. The Bicycle Association’s Annual Market Data Report shows that pedal bike sales fell 22 per cent to 1.88 million last year — more than a quarter below pre-Covid levels. Sales of children’s bikes slumped even faster, falling by 28 per cent compared with 2019, to 700,000. The report, called “Riding out the Storm”, noted that demand for electric bikes had been more stable but “overall volumes have plateaued since 2020”.

For more detail (behind the paywall): https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bike-sales-fall-to-lowest-level-in-20-years-tt5qp5tpg

Just 1 in 10 cyclists stop to let pedestrians pass to reach ‘floating bus stops’ 18th March 2023

Sat, 08 Apr 2023 18:55:01 GMT

Research by the Telegraph revealed most cyclists ignore road rules at Sadiq Khan’s ‘death trap’ crossings. Just one in 10 cyclists stop to let pedestrians cross to floating bus stops. London has overseen a proliferation of Amsterdam-style floating bus stops, where busy cycle lanes are wedged between the pavement and a bus stop island, with a zebra crossing bridging the two. In the most extensive analysis since more such stops were introduced, the Telegraph surveyed the behaviour of 397 cyclists while pedestrians were waiting at three crossings in central London. Just 33, or eight per cent, of cyclists gave way as the Highway Code requires.

For more detail (behind the paywall): https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/03/18/sadiq-khan-cyclists-floating-bus-1-10-stop-pedestrians-analysis/

More evidence spillover traffic from LTNs not counted correctly

Sat, 08 Apr 2023 18:54:55 GMT

More evidence has emerged that between 5% and 35% of cars, vans and lorries in slow-moving or stop-start traffic are not being counted.

For more detail: https://lovingdalston.co.uk/2023/03/how-traffic-counters-under-record-when-they-check-ltn-ripple-effect-in-hackney-and-elsewhere/

Manchester: fares down; ridership up March 2023

Sat, 08 Apr 2023 18:54:40 GMT

Bus ridership is up 10% since Manchester reduced fares in September 2022 to £2 for an adult single and £5 for an adult daily ticket across all operators. It cut the average cost of travel for bus travel by almost 20%.

Who uses the bus? 23rd March 2022

Sat, 08 Apr 2023 18:54:30 GMT

People on low income, people of colour, people with disabilities and women with children are more likely to rely on the bus.

For more detail: https://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/LTW_Freethebus_briefing.pdf

BAME and poorer Londoners more likely to live in areas with toxic air 12 October 2021

Sat, 08 Apr 2023 18:54:28 GMT

New data from the London Mayor shows communities which have higher levels of deprivation, or a higher proportion of people from a non-white ethnic background, are more likely to be exposed to higher levels of air pollution

For more detail: https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/bame-and-poorer-londoners-face-air-quality-risk

Dirty Air; Sick Kids

Sat, 08 Apr 2023 18:54:24 GMT

Analysis shows ~9% of kids in London breathe at least 4µg/m3 of extra NO2 pollution because they live near major roads. This level significantly increases risk of developing asthma. LTNs relocate traffic from quiet roads with high car ownership onto major community roads.

Road noise makes blood pressure rise

Sat, 08 Apr 2023 18:54:16 GMT

Unlike previous studies, this major study separates out the impact of noise and air pollution. Academics from Leicester University said the new research was a "game-changer".

For more detail: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-65089611.amp

A sixth of deliveries in central London could be done by cargo bike by 2030, TfL claims

Sat, 08 Apr 2023 18:54:11 GMT

A sixth of deliveries in central London could be done by cargo bike by 2030, according to Transport for London. It has published its first cargo bike action plan setting out how it will work with borough councils and the freight sector to promote firms to switch from vans to the purpose-built bikes and cut emissions. The idea is for the bikes, which are fitted with electric “pedal assist” devices, to be used for “final mile” deliveries to shops and homes.

31 ^st March 2023

For more detail: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/cargo-bikes-van-deliveries-central-london-tfl-westminster-b1071351.html

COMMUNITIES MUST FIT INTO THE ‘GREEN’ BOX

Mon, 27 Mar 2023 09:35:18 GMT

COMMUNITIES MUST FIT INTO THE ‘GREEN’ BOX

The so-called ‘environmental movement’ is not one unified whole. It is a diverse movement, made up of a wide range of groups and individuals, often with very different ideas and ways of working. However, there are sections of the environmental movement that have great difficulty in working with community organisations. These environmentalists start with their ideology, not with the needs of the community. They expect communities to fit into their ‘green’ box; never adapting their ideology to take account of the very real needs of communities.

Parts of the environmental movement expect communities to fit into their ‘green’ box; never adapting their ideology to take account of the very real needs of communities.

Examples of this abound

In the rush to build (subsidised) wind turbines under the last Labour Government, many environmentalists were as dismissive of the concerns of local communities as were the wind power companies. They saw the noise and visual impacts of some these turbines on communities as an unfortunate but inevitable by-product of the need for renewable energy. These communities didn’t fit into the green box.

Unlike communities concerned about fracking . Many environmentalists, who opposed fracking on climate grounds, scrambled to discover local reasons to oppose it so they could make common cause with the local communities.

It has been the same with low traffic neighbourhoods . Many environmentalists have formed a love-in with residents who want them, but show little interest in people who lose out: those experiencing extra traffic on their roads; bus users whose buses are stuck in the extra traffic; disabled people whose needs have not been thought through. All these people don’t fit into the green box and so are ignored and, in some cases, abused when they ask for justice.

B ecause these environmentalists regard themselves as the ‘good guys’, they see little need to explore and understand the real concerns of local communities. These concerns are diverse and complex. They don’t neatly fit into boxes. And they certainly don’t fit into boxes constructed by people who may be very different from themselves.

The rebellion against low traffic neighbourhoods in the East London Borough of Tower Hamlets was not primarily about people who wanted to drive unrestricted through the side streets. It was about the way the low traffic neighbourhoods disrupted the daily lives of a largely ethnic, and predominately poor, community. And yet this community is being vilified by some environmentalists for daring to suggest low traffic neighbourhoods don’t work for them.

Ironically, LTNs seem to have increased actual mileage from people going around the houses in spite of reduced traffic within the LTNs.

It is time for all in the environmental movement to destroy and recycle their little green boxes and interact, humbly and sensitively, with real communities in the real world.

John Stewart

Watchdog exposes council's £400k for low-traffic zones

Sun, 19 Mar 2023 12:38:13 GMT

LTN Review Petition

Sun, 05 Mar 2023 14:26:26 GMT

Petition to carry out an independent review of LTNs

05 March 2023

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/632748

Bus Times MATTER 28 Feb 2023

Tue, 28 Feb 2023 12:46:27 GMT

BUS TIMES MATTER: A good bus service plays an important role in cutting traffic on our roads

London TravelWatch released figures which showed that just before the pandemic average bus speeds in London were only 9.3 miles per hour. Journey times speeded up during Covid but are falling again. Journey times matter. The TravelWatch research showed there is a direct link between journey times and the number of people using buses. And that even a small increase in journey times would have a dramatic effect on decreasing the number of bus users.

If the average speed of a London bus rose by just 1mph:

There would be a rise in passenger numbers.
TfL’s annual revenue is likely to increase by as much as £80 to £85 million.
Additional savings of between £100m and £200m each year would be made because TfL would need fewer buses to ensure services “ran to time”.

Low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) have a negative impact on bus journey times because traffic is re-routed onto bus routes on our community roads. Congestion on these roads lengthens journey times and prompts buses to halt before the end of routes, forcing passengers to take two or three buses rather than one. This results in user dissatisfaction and falling passenger numbers.

Outside London, the bus service tends to be in an even worse shape. This means that most people have little choice but to drive to work, shop and socialise. Places like Brighton, Nottingham and Edinburgh have maintained a viable bus network, and things are improving in Manchester and Birmingham under their city mayors, but in large parts of the country travelling by bus is not realistic.

Transport & Equality

Not only d o slower buses tempt more people back into their cars, according to London TravelWatch research, they have a particular negative impact on the lives of women, children, people of colour, those on lower incomes, the elderly and people with disabilities.

Despite slowing and declining journey times there were still 2.1bn journeys in London in 2019/20. More people use the bus to get to work in London than any other mode of transport. With one third of all bus journeys in London made by people earning less than £20,000 a year, this is clearly an issue of transport equity. Moreover, the research showed many of these people were almost entirely reliant on the bus to get about.

Accessibility

According to research from Transport for All, buses play an important role in disabled Londoners' transport lives. With only 25% of mainline rail stations and 33% of tube stations having step-free access, buses are often the most accessible mode for many disabled people and certainly the most step-free option. (picture TfA).

The recent introduction of floating bus stops where bus passengers must board and alight their bus by crossing a live cycle lane are strongly opposed by disability organisations. The argument that very few collisions with cyclists happen misses the point. They create uncertainty for disabled people. London’s bus network has seen transformational accessibility improvements over the last 30 years. Floating bus stops move it in the wrong direction.

Keep bus es moving!

There are powerful environmental and equality reasons to ensure a fast and efficient bus service. Less traffic on the roads would help but that is not going to happen overnight. Good public transport needs to be in place first before it becomes realistic.

In the short term, bus travel would benefit from:

More bus priority measures
Lower fares
The removal of the Covid low traffic neighbourhoods
The removal of floating bus stops

For further reading:

https://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/blog/who-uses-the-busand-why/ https://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/blog/why-london-travelwatch-wants-to-freethebus/

https://www.transportforall.org.uk/news/cutting-londons-buses-would-be-disaster-for-disabled-people/#:~:text=The%20importance%20of%20the%20bus,the%20most%20step%2Dfree%20option

Imperial College Clarification Letter

Fri, 24 Feb 2023 17:18:20 GMT

24 Feb 2023

SEJ letter seeking clarification around a number of points in the recent study assessing Canonbury East, Clerkenwell Green and St Peter’s LTNs. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920922003625

Dr Audrey de Nazelle

Faculty of Natural Sciences

Centre for Environmental Policy

Imperial College

Dear Dr de Nazelle,

Open Letter

We are writing to seek clarification around a number of points in the recent study assessing Canonbury East, Clerkenwell Green and St Peter’s LTNs.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920922003625

We have several questions about the study:

· Can you tell us why these three Islington LTNs were chosen?

· Why was there no mention of the other LTNs that were in the same area and put in at the same time? Does this not invalidate the report’s definition of control sites?

· Data was provided by Islington Council - a council which previously admitted to get some of its data wrong. Which data was used in the study?

· Can you say why ‘boundary areas’ were assessed rather than specific roads, as was done in the consultant reports commissioned by Islington?

· Previous counts from all councils, including Islington, showed significant traffic increases on some boundary roads (see Appendix 1). Was this assessed in the study?

· What assessment was made of displaced traffic beyond the ‘boundary areas’? Did you do any analysis as to whether the council monitoring covered likely alternative displacement routes? From a traffic map it seems several key roads were not monitored.

· The ATC analysis software in some boroughs was found to have had a default setting to include low speed (below 10kmph) traffic in 2020 – i.e. during the 'before' counts, but the default was changed by the vendor in an update in 2021 to exclude low speed traffic (i.e. for 'after' counts). Do you know whether low speed traffic was included or excluded for each data point?

· In addition to this, how did the report account for the reduced accuracy of low speed traffic where that traffic was included, where congestion increased on boundary roads at peak times?

· Councils have also said they used 'fill in' data where ATCs failed to collect data on some days - was this data included or excluded?

· We saw no raw data in the report, only summaries. Can you disclose key raw data - like traffic flow numbers & not just percentages?

· We also have questions about the location of the comparative sites used. It seems that some of Boundary Sites and External Control Sites were also boundary roads for other LTNs and some were located within other LTNs. We outline the sites we are concerned about below.

Where traffic measurements were taken:

Boundary Sites

Junction Canonbury Road/Halton Rd: also boundary road for St Mary’s Church LTN

Essex Rd: Also boundary road for Canonbury West LTN

External Control Sites

Highbury Grove: boundary road for Highbury LTN

Holloway Road: boundary road for Highbury LTN

Where air pollution measurements were taken:

Boundary Site

Arran Walk: within Canonbury West LTN

External Control Site

Just south of Penton Rise: within Amwell LTN

Highbury Fields: within Highbury LTN

Highbury Grove: boundary road for Highbury LTN

Holloway Road: boundary road for Highbury LTN

We look forward to your response.

Happy to discuss in person.

Many thanks.

Yours sincerely,

Clair Battaglino

Katharina Herrmann

Stella Sawyer

John Stewart

Directors SEJ (Social & Environmental Justice)

https://socialenvironmentaljustice.co.uk/

Appendix One:

Below is a summary the traffic data collected by Islington Council. It seems to show a different picture from the Imperial Study.

Highbury LTN

Internal roads (roads inside the LTN):

67% reduction

Boundary roads:

Hornsey Road -28%,

Highbury Grove by -10%,

Seven Sisters Road +7%,

St Paul’s Road +15%,

Blackstock Road (north) +65%

Blackstock Road (south) +17%.

Interim data for Holloway Road was found to be of unacceptably poor quality to use for analysis,

Anwell LTN

Internal roads:

44%. Reduction

Boundary roads:

Amwell Street -2%,

Claremont Square +4%

Rosebery Avenue +3%

Pentonville Road -3%

Farringdon Road + 36%

Traffic on roads beyond the trial boundary

‘could be influenced by factors beyond the Amwell trial’.

Local roads 14% reduction

Main roads 27% increase

Canonbury East LTN

Internal roads

78% reduction

Boundary roads

New North Road +7%

Balls Pond Road +7%

Essex Road +5% and -3% (two different locations),

Southgate Road -13% and -49% (two different locations)

Baring Street -8%

Canonbury West LTN

Internal roads

46% reduction

Boundary roads

Essex Road -9%

St Paul’s Road +15%

Canonbury Road -42%

Clerkenwell LTN

Internal roads

34% reduction

Boundary roads

St John Street +38%

Skinner Street +22%

St Peters LTN

Internal roads

22% reduction

Boundary roads

New North Road – 11%

Essex Road +3%

City Road -21% (on a very small sample)

St Marys LTN

No info on council site

NEW ORGANISATION LAUNCHED TO TACKLE INJUSTICE OF LOW TRAFFIC NEIGHBOURHOODS

Fri, 03 Feb 2023 11:21:51 GMT

3 Feb, 2023

Social and Environmental Justice launches

A new not-for-profit organisation was launched on 27 January 2023 which will take the lead in campaigning for environmental justice in The United Kingdom.

SEJ (Social & Environmental Justice) includes a diverse range of people brought together by a shared concern that so-called Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs), introduced by some local councils, are both socially and environmentally unjust. The group is not aligned to any political party or social movement.

The film Divided by Ade Bademosi, which highlights the impacts of LTNs on poorer communities and communities of colour, was shown last night at the launch in North London.

SEJ director Katharina Herrmann said, “LTNs are traffic relocation schemes, not traffic reduction schemes. The harsh reality is LTNs move traffic to the very streets where congestion, air pollution and noise are already at their worst.”

Brixton resident Stella Sawyer and a Director of SEJ said “After over two years of ‘Covid’ LTNs, Councils have failed to explain properly how these schemes improve overall public health, decrease inequalities or tackle climate change when they reroute 1000s of commercial, industrial, and private vehicles a day onto residential/community roads (often where poorer people and people of colour tend live, work, shop, wait for buses, go to school etc.).”

Fellow director Clair Battaglino added, “We are determined to fight back. The health and well-being of already disadvantaged people and their children are being put at further risk so others can have slightly cleaner air. This is not a ‘green policy’ but a clear example of social, environmental, and racial injustice”.

SEJ recognises the need for traffic and pollution reduction but is concerned that the piecemeal approach taken by councils since 2020 is not only inequitable but has not been proven to be effective in reducing vehicle use across towns and cities. They question why £millions of public money is being handed over to ‘charities’, private consultants and building contractors that appear to be encouraging and/or profiting from silo working. London needs a well-planned, carefully implemented, citywide solution that takes into account the needs of small businesses, tradespeople, taxi drivers, people with mobility impairments, carers, etc. many of whom depend on vehicles for their livelihood or to get about.

Over the coming months SEJ plans to host events, commission research, and publish reports highlighting the problems with LTNs and putting forward solutions to problems that LTNs clearly have not solved.