Neighbours in Elm Grove have launched a petition asking for their road to be considered in proposed liveable neighbourhood schemes.
A petition title Stop the current Hanover and Tarner Low Traffic Neighbourhood. Bring ‘liveable’ benefits to all the Hanover and Elm Grove ward raises concerns that Elm Grove is treated as a major road.
There are more than 200 signatures on the petition launched by Alison Hughes on Thursday 24 March.
She also created a Facebook group, Elm Grove Residents and Friends, the following day to gather support for reducing traffic along the busy road.
A paper petition is also planned to reach out to those who do not use social media.
Three community engagement workshops have already taken place this month for the Hanover and Tarner Liveable Neighbourhood Pilot, almost two years after Hanover Action environmental group secured cross-party backing from city councillors.
Road closures, one-way streets, bus gates and pocket parks are options for Brighton’s first low traffic neighbourhood, with Elm Grove, Queen’s Park Road and Lewes Road marked out as the boundary.
People living in another area, the streets between Elm Grove and Hartington Road, up to Elm Grove Primary School, asked for their own low-traffic neighbourhood scheme in January.
The formal process has not started yet, but councillors recognised the need to address rat run issues in that area too.
However, Mrs Hughes is concerned Elm Grove will end up with more traffic once both low-traffic neighbourhoods get going and drivers and rat-runners are squeezed out.
She has looked into data relating to other low-traffic neighbourhoods in London and found that boundary roads experience an increase in traffic.
Even though it is used as a main route to the Race Hill and Woodingdean, Mrs Hughes argues Elm Grove is a residential road with homes and a school, unlike the boundary roads in London Boroughs where similar schemes are already operating.
She said: “I walk through Hanover daily, and it’s a car park. I don’t feel like a lot of people are driving to work and school from there.
“It’s a very different landscape. Looking at schemes in London Boroughs, the boundary roads are A and B Roads.
“Where does Elm Grove fit into that? It’s not an A or B road. It’s a residential street.
“This needs a fundamental rethink to address traffic on Elm Grove.”
The petition highlights how the “main” roads on the edge of the Hanover and Tarner pilot scheme include Elm Grove Primary School as well as Pepper-Pot Nursery and the Orchard Day Nursery.
It says: “We want to be clear that we are not against green initiatives – we want to reduce cars in the city. We are just asking for clean air for all.
“The project creates an unfair divide between residents. Certain streets benefit disproportionately whilst others receive no benefit – only higher traffic.
“This project fails to address existing real problems on the streets which need it most.”
The petition concludes: “We demand that Elm Grove is considered as a core part of the constituency and that the council provides a plan to include the street in any future ‘liveable’ projects.
“There is no social justice in creating greater air pollution for those living on the bordering roads, which by all accounts make up the more disadvantaged and vulnerable sections of the community; with more rentals, flats, HMOs, young families, school and nurseries.”
The petition is open on Brighton and Hove City Council’s website until Monday 20 June, the day before the next Environment, Transport and Sustainability Committee meeting.
A fourth community workshop for the Hanover and Tarner Liveable Neighbourhood pilot project is at the Hanover Community Centre on Wednesday 6 April, from 5-8pm.
Wonder how many residents in the road will give up there cars as thy drive in others roads or is it just in my road
This is one of the problems with low traffic neighbourhoods. If one area takes less through traffic then another must take more. That has been shown again and again in other areas. It’s good to see that those who live on Elm Grove have realised this.
However for them to be included the knock-on effects would be huge. Through routes are still needed. So if not them, then who?
Perhaps the fairer way to do this is by charging. If an area has less than its overall share of through traffic it should pay more council tax (or another charge). This would then be used to fund a council tax reduction for those areas which have to suffer for this area. We already pay for controlled parking zones, this would just be a similar idea.
Effectively what we’re creating with low traffic areas is a virtual gated community. Nice for them, but worse for those on the outside. It seems reasonable for those in these privileged areas to pay a bit to help others. If not in council tax reductions, then perhaps for grants to improve the sound (and also thermal) insulation of properties on through routes. That would be greener too….
Elm Grove is a main road. One issue is that cars have been removed from the pavements where trees are growing and people do not walk anyway. The cars are now in the road and going up or down in a bus is more of a challenge than before. If pavement parking was to be 100% a traffic offence, some bus routes will be changed or parking pushed elsewhere.
Of course, it will be pushed elsewhere and locals won’t have anywhere close to their homes to park.
That’s why solving the parking properly on Elm Grove would be a great step forward? You could surround parking bays with new trees, a cycle path, and greenery. This would also create free flowing traffic. All of which I’d imagine would help reduce pollution on elm grove too. Plus help prevent the problem being pushed elsewhere.
It’s unfortunate that when we ask people simplistic questions we get the answers we want because the true facts haven’t been mentioned. Politics is often dishonest in this way.
If we ask people in any residential street, “would you like your road closed off to traffic?” then a lot will say: “What a good idea!”
We residents might have this fantasy about our kids playing in the street, or maybe less car noise at night. It then takes a while before we realise that on essential car or taxi journeys we have to drive further just to get home, or that Amazon can no longer deliver to our door, or that the dustcart can’t get down the road.
We might not like cars, but no new form of transport is being provided in these schemes.
It’s then nearby routes which take the hit, as here.
If we close off Elm Grove then how do the buses travel up there? If we close off Queens Park Road next, and then Hartington Road, and then Bear road, how do we get to Woodingdean? Are the allotments and the Racecourse and the Downs walking paths to be cut off from the rest of the city?
There is no new tram service being provided here, no bus lanes. There is no underground to use like they have in London. The steep hills remain and you don’t see people cycling up Southover or Albion Hill.
Bit by bit, in chasing these ‘Living neighbourhoods’ we actually end up with a dead city – where no-one can get anywhere and where visitors and tourists are no longer welcome.
The city needs an integrated transport infrastructure but those in charge seem only capable of ideological or short term thinking. Sadly, these road closures don’t even achieve the goals they are supposed to.
I don’t believe anyone is talking about shutting off streets entirely of traffic. The idea is to make a driver think twice about using a random street to take a short cut. Rather than say cutting up through 4-5 narrow streets (speedily as its a “short cut” mentality), they stick to the appropriate streets. For example, driving east along Edward Street, turning north onto Queens Park Road, and down southover.. Rather than driving on narrow roads, White street> Carlton hill> st johns place > windmill Street > windmill terrace > albion hill > windmill terrac > southover Street. They avoid the traffic lights at the turn off of Edward Street and that whole corner but ultimately now on those narrow roads there are people driving there for essentially no good reason, making it more hazardous for residents of those streets. Once the roads feel less like rat runs the hope is more people consider walking and cycling.
Obviously it sucks for those other people on the big wide streets but it’s no secret those roads are arteries to the surrounding communities.
Can’t see Elm Grove being included, it’s needed as direct access to the Race Course, Woodingdean and Brighton General – it certainly is not a rat run. I do recognise though traffic will hugely increase once the Hanover LTN is introduced.
Elm Grove is being treated as a main road… Yes because it is. Its the main road to woodingdean.
Ever since they banned the parking on the pavement this road is nothing but a congested mess, as usual awful planning based on a couple of councillors not liking the look of something.
The reason the smaller roads take more traffic is down to the fact that the arterial roads are all congested, this has not been caused by more cars on the road, interestingly in Brighton there are less than before. Its simply down to the shambolic way the councils over the past 20 years have not consulted and carried out various road schemes on small sections of road without taking account of the knock on affects on the rest of the city.
Viaduct Road = was made 2 lanes 1 direction to cope with the traffic from closing London road south to cars. The result, Baker Street becoming a congested main road when it’s just a side street. Viaduct Road has somehow now become a 1 lane road so the initial idea is defunct and it should be put back to 2 way.
Lewes road = bus lanes and extra crossings on the Coombe road – Falmer section. 1 they were not needed, 2 speed limit was dropped from 40 to 30 (even though no one had been injured)
The result – bear road and elm Grove is used as a get around. Lewes road is completely grid locked as its capacity has been shrunk by 70%. A lot of pedestrians have been injured crossing the dual carriageway as they now view the road as less dangerous to cross…
Preston Road – just about functions but alas they was to put a bike lane under the viaduct which will half capacity and thus make the Valley gardens scheme a gridlocked mess.
All this is down to a lack of actual planning and not looking at the city as a whole when carrying out traffic modelling.
This is not about being pro or anti car, it’s about using commonsense.