Anti Local Traffic Neighbourhood campaign in SE London

[WHBM]

Noticed in recent days a substantial and organised anti-LTN campaign in SE London, in the lead up to the May local elections.

Particularly prevalent around Blackheath, west of the A2, where some substantial, professional-looking campaign boards have appeared all along gardens of those against it. Particularly notable is the conflicting attitudes of three different local government bodies seem to have exacerbated it.

Borough-wise, it's on the border of Lewisham and Greenwich councils, each of whom seem to have progressively imposed closures which have impacted residents of the other, either by causing inconvenient diversions or sending additional traffic by other roads (in the other borough). Meanwhile, on the main roads, TfL have contributed by, in their usual style, helping themselves to roadspace for their buses by adding 24x7 bus lanes on roads which have little bus usage. It seems each has progressively imposed further restrictions in the last 18 months to the disadvantage of the other.

Further, these areas are notably Conservative councillor voting, but minorities on Labour-controlled councils, so not a lot to be gained by pushing councillors who are already opposed to the schemes, but outnumbered. There does seem an element of xenophobia by councils against those who do not support their view. Some of the vitriol, from both sides, in local and social media is notably strong.

Notably some of the planters used as (cheap) barriers must have been moved, as they are now under surveillance by (expensive) CCTV, and these latter now seem to have needed further reinforcement by anti-climbing spiked guards on their poles.

Anywhere else getting these campaigns currently ?

[Chris Bertram]

Noticed in recent days a substantial and organised anti-LTN campaign in SE London, in the lead up to the May local elections.

Particularly prevalent around Blackheath, west of the A2, where some substantial, professional-looking campaign boards have appeared all along gardens of those against it. Particularly notable is the conflicting attitudes of three different local government bodies seem to have exacerbated it.

Borough-wise, it's on the border of Lewisham and Greenwich councils, each of whom seem to have progressively imposed closures which have impacted residents of the other, either by causing inconvenient diversions or sending additional traffic by other roads (in the other borough). Meanwhile, on the main roads, TfL have contributed by, in their usual style, helping themselves to roadspace for their buses by adding 24x7 bus lanes on roads which have little bus usage. It seems each has progressively imposed further restrictions in the last 18 months to the disadvantage of the other.

Further, these areas are notably Conservative councillor voting, but minorities on Labour-controlled councils, so not a lot to be gained by pushing councillors who are already opposed to the schemes, but outnumbered. There does seem an element of xenophobia by councils against those who do not support their view. Some of the vitriol, from both sides, in local and social media is notably strong.

Notably some of the planters used as (cheap) barriers must have been moved, as they are now under surveillance by (expensive) CCTV, and these latter now seem to have needed further reinforcement by anti-climbing spiked guards on their poles.

Anywhere else getting these campaigns currently ?

It's a pretty controversial issue in my area of Birmingham. An LTN was rushed in in Kings Heath with no consultation and no baselining of data concerning traffic levels, pollution, walking, bike riding etc - so there's no solid data available to establish its effectiveness. The stated aim of the LTN is to "encourage" people to walk more, ride bikes more, cut out short car journeys, use public transport and so on. These are very laudable aims, and few people would disagree with the general principles. After all, we all want to get fitter, and save the planet, don't we?

But the "encouragement" consists of trying to make it difficult to do anything else; this has made life harder for people who rely on being able to drive, such as the less mobile, people transporting tools for their work and others. There's been no noticeable improvement in public transport to enable people to switch to it - a station is proposed for the current goods-only line that passes through, but it's not due until next year. Emergency services have been hampered in responding to calls (there's load of video evidence of ambulances having to turn round at the road blocks); they were supposed to have keys to unlock the bollards that were installed to block through roads, and the local councillors swore blind that this was the case - it turned out that this was not the case.

And then there's the effect on roads on the immediate periphery of the LTN area. We were told that there would be "traffic evaporation", that people would magically stop driving across the area and that there would be no downside. With a grim inevitability, this has also turned out to be untrue - queues have become legendary at certain times of day, and roads further away that previously had no traffic issues have now become afflicted by increased traffic levels as drivers try to avoid the queues in the LTN area. It's almost as though those "unnecessary" journeys have turned out to be not quite as unnecessary as the LTN fans try to assert, and still continue to be made.

Finally, there's the effect on local trade. Kings Heath is - or perhaps was - a busy local shoppng centre, attracting trade from other neighbouring suburbs with fewer facilities. We have (for the time being) branches of Sainsbury's and ASDA, we have a Boots, an Iceland, a Specsavers, branches of most of the main banks, quite a few eateries, clothes shops, grocers, you get the picture. Many of these are complaining about loss of trade with customers choosing to go somewhere else that is less awkward to access. We had a 'Spoons, that has closed (not everyone is unhappy about that, but that's another story). We had a main post office, that's moved inside the WH Smiths. A sports shop that is one of the oldest shops in KH has announced that it's moving out as its trade has been damaged so much. The only traders that are expressing support for the LTN are the bars and restaurants on a street called York Road which the council pedestrianised, allowing them to put seating out on the pavements.

So it's fair to say that it's not been an unalloyed success. The council have now consulted on a range of future options, none of which allow for reversion to the status quo ante. All were rejected, but "doing nothing is not an option" so we're stuck with some form of LTN. Or are we? Coming up soon are the May council elections when Birmingham city council is all up for election. Kings Heath & Brandwood ward has two Labour councillors at the moment. One of them has decided (perhaps wisely) to move to another ward, the other is seen as one of the main architects of the LTN. She's under huge pressure, with campaing groups saying "don't vote Labour", and other candidates producing survey evidence suggesting that even within the LTN area there is not a majority for keeping it. It's clearly the key issue in this area for these elections, and the local result may be key to the outcome of whether the LTN stays, even if in a modified form, or is removed.

I think everyone recognises that Kings Heath has traffic issues. It's in a difficult situation, where a key arterial road (A435, a primary route between the city centre and M42/M40) is also a main shopping street. There is also traffic crossing this between other areas of the city. So it's a busy place, seven days a week. But whatever the solution to this is, it's become clear that the LTN, as implemented, is not the answer.

[WHBM]

I have no faith in "consultation" any more; it may be a legally-required concept but public authorities have completely lost sight of any positive contribution from those asked, and just see it as something to be overcome to get their own way.

The particular LTN issue I described seems to be some inter-borough rivalry, aided by antagonism of areas which vote for the minority political party. Blackheath, a decidedly upmarket suburban outlier in inner south London, actually has the borough boundary between Lewisham and Greenwich running north-south up the main street, and has apparently suffered from spite between opposing councillors, and indeed officers, before.

This LTN blockade has been put right at the borough boundary (you can identify by the change in road surface) in a suburban side road, like the GDR putting up the Berlin Wall, which requires those now living on the "wrong" side to take a considerable diversion.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4512301 ... 384!8i8192

[RichardA35]

...which requires those now living on the "wrong" side to take a considerable diversion.

Not if they make their way using a means that passes through the modal filter which is one of the aims of such a network.

[jnty]

I have no faith in "consultation" any more; it may be a legally-required concept but public authorities have completely lost sight of any positive contribution from those asked, and just see it as something to be overcome to get their own way.

In my experience, many participants in a consultation exercise now see it as a sort of referendum on whether the measure should go ahead as opposed to an exercise in shaping the details of a general scheme. This is not helped by many councils reporting essentially meaningless "percentage support/opposition" as opposed to general themes for each area of interest. It is true that sometimes overwhelming and well-evidenced objection to a scheme can and should result in it being completely abandoned, but fundamentally if you completely oppose the objectives and principles of a council's scheme, then it's really a local elections issue rather than a consultation one. Consultation and TRO objections can be set aside (and thank goodness they can) but local election results cannot be.

[solocle]

I have no faith in "consultation" any more; it may be a legally-required concept but public authorities have completely lost sight of any positive contribution from those asked, and just see it as something to be overcome to get their own way.

In my experience, many participants in a consultation exercise now see it as a sort of referendum on whether the measure should go ahead as opposed to an exercise in shaping the details of a general scheme. This is not helped by many councils reporting essentially meaningless "percentage support/opposition" as opposed to general themes for each area of interest. It is true that sometimes overwhelming and well-evidenced objection to a scheme can and should result in it being completely abandoned, but fundamentally if you completely oppose the objectives and principles of a council's scheme, then it's really a local elections issue rather than a consultation one. Consultation and TRO objections can be set aside (and thank goodness they can) but local election results cannot be.

This is relevant to the LTN barrier that was removed virtually outside my house.
Google Street View

This was on a list of collision sites being looked at before COVID, the pandemic active travel stuff hurried it along. The portfolio holder approved making it permanent after a consultation, where the majority opposed. However, that was a mobilisation by the local Tory party of people using the road as a rat run. The road's residents were mostly in favour of keeping the closure, as were the ward councillors.

The decision got called in and reversed. Nothing has been done about the safety issues - 5 of the collisions were in 2019 alone. None in 2020 when it was closed.

I've witnessed a car skidding around that corner since. The flare is atrocious. Particularly troubling if I'm waiting to turn into my driveway...

[Chris Bertram]

...which requires those now living on the "wrong" side to take a considerable diversion.

Not if they make their way using a means that passes through the modal filter which is one of the aims of such a network.

The question, as ever, is how many people *can* transfer to a different mode easily and still make the same end-to-end trip. The answer is "some, but not nearly as many as pro-LTN campaigners believe". As I suggested, the less mobile, people carrying loads, workmen transporting tools and equipment, people making deliveries, people making longer journeys that would be impractical without a car ... these are forced to go all the way around the Wrekin. And who's left after that?

Evaluation of the success or failure of an LTN ought to be against the claims of what it was intended to achieve. So has there been a mass shift to foot or bike? Are more people taking public transport? Has overall pollution been reduced? Has traffic "evaporated"? I have to say that in the case of the Kings Heath LTN, the answers are (1) definitely not a mass shift, but there may have been a marginal increase; (2) it doesn't look like it, but ridership figures are hard to come by; (3) we can't tell due to the lack of baseline data, but it doesn't seem likely and (4) almost certainly no. The answers are necessarily unquantified since we didn't have "before" figures" to compare the "after" with. For that Birmingham City Council should admit culpability. And if winning the hearts and minds battle is at all important, then they've lost. People need to see a benefit to the scheme, and it's not apparent to them what that benefit is.

[jnty]

...which requires those now living on the "wrong" side to take a considerable diversion.

Not if they make their way using a means that passes through the modal filter which is one of the aims of such a network.

The question, as ever, is how many people *can* transfer to a different mode easily and still make the same end-to-end trip. The answer is "some, but not nearly as many as pro-LTN campaigners believe". As I suggested, the less mobile, people carrying loads, workmen transporting tools and equipment, people making deliveries, people making longer journeys that would be impractical without a car ... these are forced to go all the way around the Wrekin. And who's left after that?

Evaluation of the success or failure of an LTN ought to be against the claims of what it was intended to achieve. So has there been a mass shift to foot or bike? Are more people taking public transport? Has overall pollution been reduced? Has traffic "evaporated"? I have to say that in the case of the Kings Heath LTN, the answers are (1) definitely not a mass shift, but there may have been a marginal increase; (2) it doesn't look like it, but ridership figures are hard to come by; (3) we can't tell due to the lack of baseline data, but it doesn't seem likely and (4) almost certainly no. The answers are necessarily unquantified since we didn't have "before" figures" to compare the "after" with. For that Birmingham City Council should admit culpability. And if winning the hearts and minds battle is at all important, then they've lost. People need to see a benefit to the scheme, and it's not apparent to them what that benefit is.

Is the subjective and objective safety of those already walking, cycling and wheeling through the area not a material consideration too?

I'm not sure about the details of this scheme, but often access/egress to/from rat runs can cause disruption to all users of the main road, complicate genuine local access and make walking and cycling along the main road (even more) unsafe/unpleasant. These are factors worth considering too.

[Bryn666]

...which requires those now living on the "wrong" side to take a considerable diversion.

Not if they make their way using a means that passes through the modal filter which is one of the aims of such a network.

The question, as ever, is how many people *can* transfer to a different mode easily and still make the same end-to-end trip. The answer is "some, but not nearly as many as pro-LTN campaigners believe". As I suggested, the less mobile, people carrying loads, workmen transporting tools and equipment, people making deliveries, people making longer journeys that would be impractical without a car ... these are forced to go all the way around the Wrekin. And who's left after that?

Evaluation of the success or failure of an LTN ought to be against the claims of what it was intended to achieve. So has there been a mass shift to foot or bike? Are more people taking public transport? Has overall pollution been reduced? Has traffic "evaporated"? I have to say that in the case of the Kings Heath LTN, the answers are (1) definitely not a mass shift, but there may have been a marginal increase; (2) it doesn't look like it, but ridership figures are hard to come by; (3) we can't tell due to the lack of baseline data, but it doesn't seem likely and (4) almost certainly no. The answers are necessarily unquantified since we didn't have "before" figures" to compare the "after" with. For that Birmingham City Council should admit culpability. And if winning the hearts and minds battle is at all important, then they've lost. People need to see a benefit to the scheme, and it's not apparent to them what that benefit is.

The vast majority of the vehicles using my street don't stop on it. Speeds are often in excess of the posted 20 limit and indeed these drivers will get the hump if you have the audacity to perform a parking manoeuvre in their way. They'll be the first to object to the proposals to filter the adjacent street I'm sure.

[WHBM]

The vast majority of the vehicles using my street don't stop on it.

This is doubtless true of every street which is not a cul-de-sac.

[jnty]

The vast majority of the vehicles using my street don't stop on it.

This is doubtless true of every street which is not a cul-de-sac.

For well designed local streets I'd argue it shouldn't be, doubly so if you're talking about neighbourhood units rather than individual streets. But this is really the holy war which underlies LTN battles isn't it - should we aim to have a hierarchy of streets where we have local, collector and arterial roads with appropriate designs and provision for all users in view of expected traffic levels, or should we say a road is a road and smear the traffic across the whole network?

[Bryn666]

The vast majority of the vehicles using my street don't stop on it.

This is doubtless true of every street which is not a cul-de-sac.

Yes, and we should remember that Victorian street networks were designed for the primary movement of people on foot, because cars didn't exist. It is therefore reasonable to expect such streets to be restricted to things they were not designed for in some way - indeed numerous ones were closed off to through traffic in Blackburn and Bolton as part of General Improvement Area works in the 1970s and nobody wants those ripping out and reopening to rat-runners, and even at the time despite car use growing exponentially and everyone thinking driving was the future people supported them otherwise they wouldn't have happened in the first place.

Here's just a small selection...

https://goo.gl/maps/HuXGkkfLDZY8jPvFA
https://goo.gl/maps/vGbKqBR2P9P3pBwW8
https://goo.gl/maps/LM7BozgHcFDJ9asN8
https://goo.gl/maps/dSAF7cKamrC13VP18
https://goo.gl/maps/LtTn7Fjcosyp5X3S6
https://goo.gl/maps/AyPqMrFWHvucKKgn6
https://goo.gl/maps/MjPL6GY1E7rABmYY9
https://goo.gl/maps/jfxmm9X8kA6LtV16A
https://goo.gl/maps/EY39viAzGq4KcVtr5
https://goo.gl/maps/a2Gf9MzjPkKLUA4J8
https://goo.gl/maps/qMmFhzfoFbTRHxZc6
https://goo.gl/maps/Mb7oMkRVjPV5WmYt9
https://goo.gl/maps/YDoMKRvHBazm9VCJ9
https://goo.gl/maps/AYWZQxhJW7aGMv2z7

Even soft restrictions were welcomed:
https://goo.gl/maps/qS3SxvQgxKqP5gyf9

Would anyone like to nominate which ones we shall dig up and put the road back in for? I mean by all metrics by the "One" group anti-LTN campaigners they just don't work and there must be starving elderly people that haven't had a roof repaired since installation of these 'roadblocks' in the 1970s?

[Chris Bertram]

Not if they make their way using a means that passes through the modal filter which is one of the aims of such a network.

The question, as ever, is how many people *can* transfer to a different mode easily and still make the same end-to-end trip. The answer is "some, but not nearly as many as pro-LTN campaigners believe". As I suggested, the less mobile, people carrying loads, workmen transporting tools and equipment, people making deliveries, people making longer journeys that would be impractical without a car ... these are forced to go all the way around the Wrekin. And who's left after that?

Evaluation of the success or failure of an LTN ought to be against the claims of what it was intended to achieve. So has there been a mass shift to foot or bike? Are more people taking public transport? Has overall pollution been reduced? Has traffic "evaporated"? I have to say that in the case of the Kings Heath LTN, the answers are (1) definitely not a mass shift, but there may have been a marginal increase; (2) it doesn't look like it, but ridership figures are hard to come by; (3) we can't tell due to the lack of baseline data, but it doesn't seem likely and (4) almost certainly no. The answers are necessarily unquantified since we didn't have "before" figures" to compare the "after" with. For that Birmingham City Council should admit culpability. And if winning the hearts and minds battle is at all important, then they've lost. People need to see a benefit to the scheme, and it's not apparent to them what that benefit is.

Is the subjective and objective safety of those already walking, cycling and wheeling through the area not a material consideration too?

I'm not sure about the details of this scheme, but often access/egress to/from rat runs can cause disruption to all users of the main road, complicate genuine local access and make walking and cycling along the main road (even more) unsafe/unpleasant. These are factors worth considering too.

I'm telling you what the stated objectives of the scheme were. Few think that they have even come close to being achieved.

[Chris Bertram]

The vast majority of the vehicles using my street don't stop on it.

This is doubtless true of every street which is not a cul-de-sac.

Yes, and we should remember that Victorian street networks were designed for the primary movement of people on foot, because cars didn't exist. It is therefore reasonable to expect such streets to be restricted to things they were not designed for in some way - indeed numerous ones were closed off to through traffic in Blackburn and Bolton as part of General Improvement Area works in the 1970s and nobody wants those ripping out and reopening to rat-runners, and even at the time despite car use growing exponentially and everyone thinking driving was the future people supported them otherwise they wouldn't have happened in the first place.

Here's just a small selection...

https://goo.gl/maps/HuXGkkfLDZY8jPvFA
https://goo.gl/maps/vGbKqBR2P9P3pBwW8
https://goo.gl/maps/LM7BozgHcFDJ9asN8
https://goo.gl/maps/dSAF7cKamrC13VP18
https://goo.gl/maps/LtTn7Fjcosyp5X3S6
https://goo.gl/maps/AyPqMrFWHvucKKgn6
https://goo.gl/maps/MjPL6GY1E7rABmYY9
https://goo.gl/maps/jfxmm9X8kA6LtV16A
https://goo.gl/maps/EY39viAzGq4KcVtr5
https://goo.gl/maps/a2Gf9MzjPkKLUA4J8
https://goo.gl/maps/qMmFhzfoFbTRHxZc6
https://goo.gl/maps/Mb7oMkRVjPV5WmYt9
https://goo.gl/maps/YDoMKRvHBazm9VCJ9
https://goo.gl/maps/AYWZQxhJW7aGMv2z7

Even soft restrictions were welcomed:
https://goo.gl/maps/qS3SxvQgxKqP5gyf9

Would anyone like to nominate which ones we shall dig up and put the road back in for? I mean by all metrics by the "One" group anti-LTN campaigners they just don't work and there must be starving elderly people that haven't had a roof repaired since installation of these 'roadblocks' in the 1970s?

Straw man, I'm afraid. Individual stoppings-up to alleviate individual issues, not even remotely comparable to a wide-area LTN. I've seen this kind of comparison tried with other schemes. Nearby, there is an area of north Moseley where some streets were blocked back in the 1990's (I think, it was around that time anyway). This has been claimed to be an "LTN", but this is obvious nonsense since back then the term wasn't even a twinkle in the eye of the traffic planners who dreamed them up. What is was, in fact, was a solution to the issue in that area of kerb-crawling, and in those terms it worked. Kings Heath doesn't have a kerb-crawling problem, so parallels between the two schemes don't really stand up at all, plus the Moseley example is far from a busy shopping area, and it wasn't "rat-runners", however you define them, that were the problem.

[Bryn666]

This is doubtless true of every street which is not a cul-de-sac.

Yes, and we should remember that Victorian street networks were designed for the primary movement of people on foot, because cars didn't exist. It is therefore reasonable to expect such streets to be restricted to things they were not designed for in some way - indeed numerous ones were closed off to through traffic in Blackburn and Bolton as part of General Improvement Area works in the 1970s and nobody wants those ripping out and reopening to rat-runners, and even at the time despite car use growing exponentially and everyone thinking driving was the future people supported them otherwise they wouldn't have happened in the first place.

Here's just a small selection...

https://goo.gl/maps/HuXGkkfLDZY8jPvFA
https://goo.gl/maps/vGbKqBR2P9P3pBwW8
https://goo.gl/maps/LM7BozgHcFDJ9asN8
https://goo.gl/maps/dSAF7cKamrC13VP18
https://goo.gl/maps/LtTn7Fjcosyp5X3S6
https://goo.gl/maps/AyPqMrFWHvucKKgn6
https://goo.gl/maps/MjPL6GY1E7rABmYY9
https://goo.gl/maps/jfxmm9X8kA6LtV16A
https://goo.gl/maps/EY39viAzGq4KcVtr5
https://goo.gl/maps/a2Gf9MzjPkKLUA4J8
https://goo.gl/maps/qMmFhzfoFbTRHxZc6
https://goo.gl/maps/Mb7oMkRVjPV5WmYt9
https://goo.gl/maps/YDoMKRvHBazm9VCJ9
https://goo.gl/maps/AYWZQxhJW7aGMv2z7

Even soft restrictions were welcomed:
https://goo.gl/maps/qS3SxvQgxKqP5gyf9

Would anyone like to nominate which ones we shall dig up and put the road back in for? I mean by all metrics by the "One" group anti-LTN campaigners they just don't work and there must be starving elderly people that haven't had a roof repaired since installation of these 'roadblocks' in the 1970s?

Straw man, I'm afraid. Individual stoppings-up to alleviate individual issues, not even remotely comparable to a wide-area LTN. I've seen this kind of comparison tried with other schemes. Nearby, there is an area of north Moseley where some streets were blocked back in the 1990's (I think, it was around that time anyway). This has been claimed to be an "LTN", but this is obvious nonsense since the term wasn't even a twinkle in the eye of the traffic planners who dreamed them up. What is was, in fact, was a solution to the issue in that area of kerb-crawling, and in those terms it worked. Kings Heath doesn't have a kerb-crawling problem, so parallels between the two schemes don't really stand up at all, plus the Moseley example is far from a busy shopping area, and it wasn't "rat-runners", however you define them, that were the problem.

What part of General Improvement Area did you miss? These were not individual stoppings up to deal with "individual issues". They were put in to stop selfish "always the victim, never my fault" motorists cutting through residential areas, so local residents could have quality of life you seem intent on denying exists. Which ones do you think we should remove then, Chris? I'm all ears.

Frankly it staggers me that people are more concerned with the feelings of inanimate metal boxes being unable to shortcut through residential areas than they are with the actual people that have to deal with the effects of it on a daily basis.

Why do people pay more for houses on cul-de-sacs more than they do on main roads? Would it be the quietness and lack of traffic? No, can't possibly be that.

[Chris Bertram]

If this LTN were such a wonderful thing, then the residents within the area would be right behind it and it would have general support. It doesn't. Would you like to come along and tell them that they're all wrong, and that they should be welcoming the disruption, the increased pollution, the degradation of their shopping area and the rest? I can assure you that your stereotyping of them all as "selfish drivers" (to be brief) is miles from the truth. These are ordinary people trying to live ordinary lives and go about their ordinary business, and are now finding roadblocks put in the way of that at the behest of traffic planners who clearly have little understanding of the effects of what they are doing. LTNs are clearly "flavour of the month" right now, but the downsides are manifesting themselves wherever they are tried; I suspect that they will not last as an approach in the long term.

[Big L]

You both realise that neither of you is going to convince the other, right? It's never happened before.

[Chris Bertram]

You both realise that neither of you is going to convince the other, right? It's never happened before.

Yes, I know. All I'll say is that schemes imposed from above by high-handed authority convinced of the rightness of its plans have a habit of blowing up in the face of said authority. This is one such example.

[Bryn666]

You both realise that neither of you is going to convince the other, right? It's never happened before.

Yes, I know. All I'll say is that schemes imposed from above by high-handed authority convinced of the rightness of its plans have a habit of blowing up in the face of said authority. This is one such example.

Well that's an indictment on your traffic engineers, because whenever I've worked on controversial schemes - and I've done several now including putting a 40 mph limit back in after residents had it cut to 30 and it didn't work - we've won people round. Residents told me this https://goo.gl/maps/1zEZFdNDKgaCvcDY6 would never work when they complained about speeding traffic through a skew crossroads, and now they think it's brilliant. I pointed out how much traffic lights, their preferred fix, would screw their village and they relented.

In fact sometimes schemes have happened when we had no plans to do them - this modal filter was practically begged for by the residents: https://goo.gl/maps/5b19DqKj5QhHUZHz9

But equally, why should those of us paid to have a duty of care of keeping the public safe respond with platitudes when you've already decided things won't work before they even happen?

[Chris Bertram]

It's an indictment of the council, as much as anything, perhaps a select few councillors who have been driving this - and a couple of others in the city - through. They made a mad dash for some government cash, installed the LTN with little warning and no chance to object, and are now experiencing the backlash, shortly to be expressed through the ballot box.

There are supporters of the scheme, of course - however there are many more who are supporters of the general aims of getting people out on foot more and on bike etc etc, but who deplore the scheme that is in place. Hey, nobody said it would be easy (and if they did they should be shot); schemes like this take time to design, time to consult on and time to implement. This was a mad rush from start to finish, and it shows.