Forum Topic

Do LTNs cause problems for the emergency services?

There have been attacks on LTNs on the grounds that they impede the emergency services. I haven't seen any data from the ambulance service, but the London Fire Brigade, in their latest report on response times, make it clear they have found no difference:"In 2020 a number of LTNs were introduced across London as temporary measures to create more space for walking and cycling, allowing people to travel more safely during the COVID pandemic. During the pandemic we have had more resources that are immediately available to respond and roads (during lockdown periods) have been quieter. That being the case, we haven’t yet noticed any impact on our attendance times due to the LTN schemes established in 2020; however, we will continue to monitor their impact at a local level. The attendance times to boroughs in inner London, where the majority of the LTNs seem to be, still remain quicker than those in outer London."https://data.london.gov.uk/download/incident-response-times-fire-facts/0e2535d5-f0b7-4c28-8001-f6febf67582f/Fire%20Facts%20-%20Incident%20response%20times%202020.pdf

Richard Carter ● 1831d52 Comments

That sounds very worrying Martine Martine.Unfortunately the UK doesn't have a good reputation for protecting whistleblowers.It is difficult to know where the truth is. But the barriers are there because someone has decided that we will no longer enforce road signs!

Ed Robinson ● 1829d

I think he probably is not the only one who answers the description of rabid defender of something.......

Ivonne Holliday ● 1829d

I wouldn't take too seriously anything Andrew Ellson writes on LTNs as he's known to be rabidly against the whole idea of limiting traffic. Not exactly a neutral commentator.

Richard Carter ● 1829d

Hello Martine,I am copy-pasting below extracts of the article:".... The London Fire Brigade data shows there were more than 330 delays a month because of traffic calming measures between June and November 2020, up 18 per cent on a year earlier. In boroughs that introduced low-traffic zones last year, delays jumped by 35 per cent. The increase in areas without new low-traffic zones was only 2.8 per cent.The delays could have been caused by traffic calming measures other than low-traffic zones but the disparity between the increase in areas with and without low-traffic zones suggests that the schemes are responsible for the greater part of the increase.The fire service would not condemn the barriers and said it “supports proposals to promote active travel”. It points out that response times overall were on average 12 seconds faster last year although it admits that traffic levels were much lower because of lockdown.....Its failure to speak out about the delays has raised concerns among rank and file firefighters that senior managers are playing politics with people’s lives.One serving officer, who asked not to be named, said: “The bosses are controlled by Sadiq Khan and don’t want to upset him as he controls the budget.” The Mayor of London is a supporter of low-traffic zones.The firefighter added: “This is definitely a problem that has popped up. We have FB14 keys [for bollards] but they don’t help if there is a flower box blocking the way through.”The Times has also seen internal emails released under freedom of information rules that show that in some areas of London, councils have gone ahead with low-traffic zones despite concerns and objections from all three emergency services.In one case, a fire service official wrote to the London Ambulance Service asking it to lodge “an official request” to suspend works on a low traffic zone in east London. The email states: “At least this way there will be official documentation to present in the event that someone dies as a result of not being able to get an ambulance to them if the planned works go ahead and do cause havoc on the main routes with gridlock and traffic jams.”In another, an ambulance service official says that councils “sometimes struggle to understand the needs of the emergency services”.......He [a medical clinician] said: “The emergency service is not keen to engage on this issue because people [from the cycling lobby] have a go at them internally. They will be members of the London Cycling Campaign and they say we should be encouraging public health through active travel. A few hospital trust chief executives have signed their support for these schemes but when you speak to front line staff and ambulance crews they say the low-traffic zones are awful.“They don’t even want bollards with keys as it takes too long. When it comes to strokes or heart attacks, every second counts.”.......

Ivonne Holliday ● 1829d

Here’s some more from the article: “Frontline emergency workers say they are worried that their bosses are ignoring the problem due to political pressure from supporters of the schemes” “Videos have emerged online of fire engines and ambulances stopping at the roadblocks or mounting kerbs to get around them.  In some cases paramedics and firefighters have walked to incidents.”

Martine Guy ● 1829d

According to an article in today’s Times newspaper “Traffic Calming Zones in Capital Delay Fire Crews”.  Slowed responses revealed in a Freedom of Information request.   “The Brigade’s failure to speak out about the delays has raised concerns among rank and file officers”. Can’t post the full article, as I don’t know how to!

Martine Guy ● 1829d

Chris I was being serious.The definition is important otherwise you may get some local authorities take the TFL/Queen's shilling - put up a few signs and call it an LTN.As well as defining them we also need to identify them. How many are they and where are they?Unless you have the above then trying to use any data to justify an impact either way on emergency response times is meaningless IMO.There were less than five thousand callouts in the LBF figures. How many were to LTN's? Even looking at Wandsworth figures - do we know how many LTN's Wandsworth have and how many were new in 2020?"Putney is full of them" you say - so give me some examples? Give me a list? Show me where they are documented? Do I need to install a Pokemon app to see them perhaps??With regard achieving the general aims of LTN's, more transparency is needed. Some organisations have not been transparent and this has led to a loss of trust. Local traffic data should be in the public domain for example - why isn't it? There was no ownership of the West Putney trial LTN's last year.As regard car use - we need to decriminalise the use of e-scooters/e-bikes and other devices and regulate them. The Highway code also needs to be brought into the 21st century.With less cars we are getting higher speeds on the roads, but that does not seem to be a subject the anti-car lobby want to discuss as I guess it comes back to enforcement.

Ed Robinson ● 1830d

I agree.  And it would help if all buses were clean.  At the moment, some of them are, but many are still running on diesel with dirty engines.....

Ivonne Holliday ● 1830d

The same applies to Werter Rd - I am convinced the council will do nothing that the residents of that road are not in support of.  They have made their views very clear that do not want the end of the road permanently blocked off and they don't want to lose any on-street parking.  So it seems the best one can hope for is some beautification of the area outside Sainsbury's. Personally I think that's a shame but I also think the principle of keeping road changes to ones the locals are happy with is important.I would also support a trial of two-way cycling on the road but even that will quite possibly be resisted by enough people to prevent it happening.The bigger picture remains - we need cleaner vehicles, less traffic, more walking, more cycling (amongst many other things), if we are to do our local bit to combat air pollution and climate change.

Jonathan Callaway ● 1830d

Hello Jonathan,I speak about DHR LTN as it is the one I have experience first hand.  And yes, it was a complete disaster.I have not problem with reducing through traffic on side roads, but we must have it very clearly defined.  I do not consider DHR a side road but yes side roads from it.... DHR residents were not all campaigning to reduce through traffic, some of them certainly were.  Particularly the short stretch near the parade of shops where the road narrow and there is parking on both sides of the road. They were talking about not allowing traffic through at rush hour.  It included the closure of Rodway Road and Longwood Drive.All of this "campaigning" came to an abrupt end when the LTN was implemented.  The result was the residents' association resigned and a new association elected.  I totally agree, you wish to make changes to circulation of motor vehicles, consult with all of the people who will be affected and show a proper traffic management scheme.  Without the latter, you run into problems, as we know.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1830d

Just looked up Cargo bike, what do they take their children on the job. You obviously do not know a real builder. What about Cement Mixer, Shovels, wood, tools. You talk a load of Bo=====ks. What if they have people working for them, do they do a balancing trick and carry them on their shoulders, With the one at the top holding the ladder. What a plank.

Barbara Stevens ● 1830d

Chris your obviously a friend of Richard, is he feeding you all this rubbish as nobody takes any notice of him any more. We've seen past him, now we see past you, get on your bike.

Barbara Stevens ● 1830d

There's not really any such thing as unfettered vehicle access. The resulting congestion, accidents and casualties tend to have a festering effect. (I remember in my younger days driving in Athens and Naples when they were a free for all - great fun outside rush hour - but even those cities are taming traffic now.)I agree with Jonathan, LTNs need careful planning and implementation.

Michael Ixer ● 1830d

To be fair the DHR LTN was badly planned and implemented in a rush, with some signage still being put up after it had come into operation.  So no surprise motorists were taken by surprise.On that basis I don't think it's right to assume that the whole concept of trying to reduce short cut or rat run through traffic from side roads is wrong.  DHE residents have been campaigning for years to reduce through traffic, especially in the morning rush hour - so the council obviously thought their plan would be welcomed.  On this occasion they were clearly wrong!If we accept that reducing through traffic on side roads is a laudable aim then the only question is where to put them and how carefully they should be designed - not to mention planned in consultation with the people whose streets are affected.Maybe that's where we will end up, but the evidence that emergency vehicles are being held up by them is slim - part of the problem may simply have been that their satnavs had not been updated.  I remember a year or two back getting a minicab who tried to take the Hammersmith Bridge route into London.  I told the driver it was shut (this was a previous closure, not the current one), but he preferred to believe his satnav - until we got to the bridge and saw it was indeed shut.  He was using Waze and he updated it on the spot.In summary, careful planning and proper consultation might address most people's concerns.  Unless their aim is to maintain unfettered motor vehicle access to every road at all times, in which case any change will be resisted.

Jonathan Callaway ● 1830d

I am afraid I do not agree with you, particularly on this:- Dover House Road is a residential road with a bus route on it.  It is neither quiet (because of the bus route) nor narrow.  Both ends of Dover House Road were closed, the road was divided in half so people living near the URR end could not go through to Putney Heath and vice versa.  There were smaller side roads that were completely blocked and residents could not to their houses.  All in all an unmitigated disaster!Smaller roads have been closed for some time in Putney (Felsham Road, Charlwood Road) and there is no entrance during morning rush hour in Dryburgh Road. As far as I am aware, none of these roads have bus routes on them.As far as ambulances are concerned, you may think they have no issues with them.  Well, they were not impressed when Dover House Road was closed and, while they may have found ways round some roads in north London, they still cannot get through planters, etc.  It was a travesty to common sense that emergency services were not given codes or keys to open the blocking items on roads.  Neither did they have ANPRs.  Not clever at all!

Ivonne Holliday ● 1830d

One can hypothesise that if LTNs reduce unnecessary car journeys and means fewer cars are owand with more car club use then that frees up road space for those with no alternative - emergency vehicles, work people, blue badge holders, etc - while at the same time making roads safer, less polluted and more pleasant for pedestrians and cyclists. 

Michael Ixer ● 1830d

resident permits should be about £1000 a year more expensive to be honest. looking at land prices, and the fact that cars spend 98% of their time sitting there parked, not being used and taking up loads of space, it's mad they're so cheap.builders can access houses just like anyone else. nowhere is cut off.plus there's plenty of tradesmen who use cargo bikes these days because it's way faster and easier for them.

Chris Wood ● 1830d

So you won't need a builder, who will have to carry all his gear halfway round the block to get to you. Apart from paying for one of the car schemes what about residents permits for parking. I spoke to a builder who is not from this area the other day, who said if he goes into the London area he puts another 100 a day on the bill to the customer or says no thanks get somebody else.

Barbara Stevens ● 1830d

I have no idea if you're being serious or not.An LTN is a Low Traffic Neighbourhood.They have many purposes, but at their core the aim is to reduce through traffic on quiet, narrow residential streets. Connected navigation apps like Waze, Google Maps etc use live data and reroute drivers through side roads when main roads are blocked. This has led to increased pollution, danger and congestion along these smaller roads. This makes walking, cycling and access for those with disabilities more difficult, and puts kids in danger.LTNs work by closing one end of a road off, so that it can't be used as a cut-through. All houses are still accessible by cars, but can mean short detours as people get used to not being able to drive wherever they please.The data shows that areas with LTNs have increased uptake of cycling and walking, lower pollution and better air quality.LTNs have been around for decades, Putney is full of them and they are nothing new. A number were installed last year in the pandemic to encourage active travel when public transport was difficult to use safely with the restrictions.As half of Londoners don't own cars, they need ways to travel safely.And because over half of car journeys can be walked and cycled in under 15 minutes, the long term aim is for people to realise that their cars are often not as necessary as they once thought. I for one, sold my car a few years ago once I worked out how much easier, cheaper and more enjoyable it is to cycle and walk in London. I now use car share schemes like Getaround when I need a car, which rent out really nice, clean cars for around £40 a day. However, some vocal motoring groups seem to have taken this as some declaration of war and are very vocal in their complaints about them.The reality seems to be those who live on them love them, emergency services have no issues with them, and those who live near them are worried about increased traffic displace to their roads. Over time this should decrease as people start to use cars less.

Chris Wood ● 1830d

Ed, if you're so keen to get a definition of LTNs, I suggest you find it for yourself, using Google, for instance (there are other search engines too).

Richard Carter ● 1830d

And what about ambulances?  Do you have their stats available too, by any chance?

Ivonne Holliday ● 1830d

I am sorry Richard.  None of LTNs were implemented  with consultation as all the LTNs were introduced as ETOs.  The main plan came from DfT, the Councils were given 6 weeks in which to implement it.  That is why so many councils instituted the LTNs at the same time, in the same way and all so totally wrong.What most Councils did was take the requests from residents they had in their archives to close streets during rush hour traffic and they closed them completely, divided the roads in half and implemented no entry to side roads if not close them altogether.  An unmitigated disaster that they received the reaction that was due.If Hackney had done the planning, consultation and longer-term evaluation, they would not have the fierce reaction from the residents, to this day. That is because they implemented them as ETOs.  The same goes to all Councils who implemented the LTNs.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1830d

I'd be careful these as you call it self important Lawyers don't take you to Court, for continually annoying residents. Verging on Harassment.

Barbara Stevens ● 1830d

Chris and Richard you will have to help me a bit more on the definition and official list of LTN's.Richard's link did not have a clear definition. If it did perhaps he can quote it here??I would suggest unless you have the above any national stats are meaningless.

Ed Robinson ● 1830d

Extensive data available in the link in this tweethttps://twitter.com/adamtranter/status/1375433799115415552?s=20New data published by @LondonFire shows LTNs have not slowed down their response times. The report states "We haven’t yet noticed any impact on our attendance times due to the LTN schemes established in 2020".

Chris Wood ● 1830d

Well, we can at least agree that the implementation of these schemes was done hurriedly, was too often badly thought out  and, as a result, bungled: not a great advertisement for the competence of too many councils. Similar schemes in, for example, Hackney are very different because of the planning, consultation and longer-term evaluation. There's no substitute for doing a job properly!

Richard Carter ● 1830d

You may not think so Richard, but that was a very powerful reason to stop the LTNs.  You may call it a misinformation campaign by drivers.  Pity the LTN issue was all such a mess and so badly thought through that chaos ensued.  Chaos still happens in North London by the way.The example I can talk about because it was close to home and I experienced it is Dover House Road.  It was not only an insult to residents but it was a deranged idea of safety.  All in all, from experience, I can tell you the LTNs may look great on paper but Dover House Road was a nightmare. 

Ivonne Holliday ● 1830d

"That is why they stopped the LTNs in Wandsworth."I don't think so: much more it was as a result of a misinformation campaign by drivers, led by OneWandsworth, which led to the council panicking instead of calmly reviewing the schemes when they had had time for people to get used to them, just as they panicked (in a different context) when some ludicrously self-important lawyers in Charlwood Road threatened to sue them over their proposed northward extension of the school street there. "Of course, perhaps you consider people dying because ambulances can not reach them to be one of those things."That's a rather slimy point, unworthy of you.

Richard Carter ● 1830d

"Sometimes it's just OK to have an opinion"Of course! But it does help, especially if it's a contentious issue, to have evidence to support it.

Richard Carter ● 1830d

Yes but without dictating what an acceptable response is. Accepting that folk have opinions that are not always backed up by statistical analysis. Sometimes it's just ok to have an opinion.

Andy Pike ● 1830d

"I'm still waiting for the definition of a LTN"Try Part 3 of this guide (it was quite easy to find on Google): https://www.sustrans.org.uk/for-professionals/infrastructure/an-introductory-guide-to-low-traffic-neighbourhood-design.

Richard Carter ● 1830d

The FoI will give you the information the government want to give.  Hence, the whistle blowers are punished as they are.Yes, it is one case in Oxfodshire just in the same way there was a case in Tooting I believe that the patient died at home because the ambulance could not reach them, particularly as they needed the equipment in the ambulance.  This also happened in at least two other instances in the Wandsworth borough council area.  That is why they stopped the LTNs in Wandsworth.  Of course, perhaps you consider people dying because ambulances can not reach them to be one of those things.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1830d

Says the man who posted “EUtopia gets it wrong again with the vaccine” and “Another government u turn [in Germany]”...

Richard Carter ● 1830d

I accept that, it’s a fair point, but (and I can’t check the whole piece as it’s behind the Telegraph’s paywall) it appears to be a single unfortunate case with an added somewhat inflammatory warning, not from the NHS but from the family affected, that “others will perish.”As against that, you can set the findings of the FoI case (mentioned in my post of 27/03/21 14:10:00), in which 10 of the 12 NHS Ambulance trusts contacted (two had yet to respond) found no problems.You can check this yourself here: https://www.cyclinguk.org/sites/default/files/document/2021/02/2101_ambulance-trusts-summary_of_responses_to_cycling_uks_fois.pdf

Richard Carter ● 1830d

Lacy Rd and Felsham Rd also have Barrier's.

Barbara Stevens ● 1830d

Hello Andy,I agree with you.  His message was/is a bait.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1830d

Or, what about this?https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/20/calls-review-road-closures-paramedics-blocked-999-emergency/

Ivonne Holliday ● 1830d

I'm still waiting for the definition of a LTN. I assume it is something that can't be defined and you need faith in their existence to become a follower.Charlwood Road seems to have been ordained one because it has a barrier preventing  vechiles wider than 0.5m crossing it. Does Putney have any others?Are gated developments LTNs for example?Is that the reason they have not defined them I wonder?

Ed Robinson ● 1830d

I am surprised you guys rise to the bait and indulge him.( as I am now,)  He only posts to amuse himself with our responses he has no interest at all on the response  unless of course you agree with him.

Andy Pike ● 1830d

Richard, why do you ask for evidence and when a forum member gives evidence you get your knickers in a twist. Or if somebody puts something on the forum you don't like your only defence is to take the p==s.

Barbara Stevens ● 1830d

Is a photograph not evidence?  Since when?

Ivonne Holliday ● 1830d

This report is a mash-up of allegations from an ambulance-chasing lawyer, not actual evidence. And, of course, it's in the Daily Mail, hardly a source of reliable information:"The Daily Mail has been noted for its unreliability and widely criticised for its printing of sensationalist and inaccurate scare stories of science and medical research"(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail), "The Daily Mail, has been named and shamed as the most unreliable and untrustworthy news organisation in the country for the third year in a row after yet again racking up more sanctions from the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) than and other title in 2018"https://evolvepolitics.com/the-daily-mail-named-and-shamed-as-the-most-untrustworthy-uk-media-outlet-for-third-year-running/"Overall, we rate Daily Mail Right Biased and Questionable due to numerous failed fact checks and poor sourcing of information"https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/daily-mail/How much more do you need before you stop believing in this garbage?

Richard Carter ● 1830d

Nice photo but what's it supposed to prove? FGS, I was asking about EVIDENCE i.e. DATA, not anecdotes!

Richard Carter ● 1830d

I wonder, and this in the Daily Mail!https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9410097/Lawyer-fighting-removal-London-cycleway-blasts-failure-protect-elderly.html

Ivonne Holliday ● 1830d

Evidence from Palmers Green

Ivonne Holliday ● 1831d

Re: cycleways, the design standard for any segregated bike lane is that they have to be 3.2m (I think, don't quote me on the exact measure) wide which is wide enough for Fire Engines and Ambulances. The RBKC Kensington High Street bike lane is a good example of that. Allowed fast access for emergency services in both directions, which is normally stuck in the traffic and parked cars.

Chris Wood ● 1831d

Vague anecdotal claims are not evidence, so this comment isn't helpful. On NHS ambulances, a freedom of information request found that NHS Trusts responded that pop-up cycleways and Low Traffic Neighborhoods are not delaying ambulances. So another excuse is shot down.

Richard Carter ● 1831d

What is an LTN?Last time I looked it wasn't sufficiently defined or what it did say the WBC ones didn't meet the criteria.Is is investing that Charlwood road barrier that is ignored by motorcycles is being held up as an example.Some people see it as an LTN I just see it  as an example where a no entry sign would do if we had enforcement.In short LTN's are an acceptence of the lack of road law enforcement. But it is a dead-end policy. The green low traffic solutions that are here now such micro mobility (even cycling) and those that we need such as community electric cars, require good laws, low crime and law enforcement. Cities with those qualities will leave London behind.

Ed Robinson ● 1831d

The opposition to LTNs is difficult to grasp but locally the ones that briefly appeared last summer were not here long enough to judge what their longer term effects might be.The problem with the ones brought in last year was the speed with which they were installed, the minimal warning to affected residents and of course the lack of consultation.  While we can blame the council for that the real culprit is Grant Shapps whose dept made the money available but only for use within six weeks or so.  As a result far too little planning went into them.There has been concerted opposition to LTNs in some areas, mainly from vehicle owners finding their usual short cuts blocked off but also from some campaigners who believe LTNs solve nothing in terms of reducing traffic (said by Shapps to be the aim) because they just displace it.Furthermore some say this is proving discriminatory by quietening the streets of the well-heeled within the LTN areas at the expense of those more disadvantaged residents who live on already busy roads.  I have seen little evidence that this is the case but a lot of assertions by people who have convinced themselves and are seeking to convince the councils that installed them.To return to the point, there is little hard evidence either way on how effective they are for their intended purpose but wider studies do suggest they have a net benefit in reducing and calming traffic flows.  On that basis they should be allowed to survive long enough for proper judgements to be made.  A lot will depend on exact local traffic conditions and how they are affected.If Wandsworth Council decides to reintroduce any I think they will feel obliged to have a consultation first and, given the way residents of any one road seem to object to anything that might inconvenience them even to a minor extent, progress is likely to be very slow.

Jonathan Callaway ● 1831d

Well I have seen it as I live right near the High Street, how do the cars pull out of the way as there is no space for them.

Barbara Stevens ● 1831d

Thank you, Chris. I should have added to the original post that what I'm looking for is actual data, not just alarmist predictions, of which there are plenty.

Richard Carter ● 1831d

Haven't seen any data at all to suggest this. Sure, the emergency services drivers need to know where they are and where the entrances are, but they're all well capable of that.One thing that makes me laugh about LTNs is that London has been full of them for 50+ years. There's dozens of them in Putney like Felsham Rd, Charlwood Rd etc, don't recall anyone being up in arms about the 'carnage' they have caused.

Chris Wood ● 1831d