Government approach to local authority road measures

[FosseWay]

They've been there all my life, as demonstrated by the size of the trees!

The mistake made was these things were given a name; once that happened the usual red face angry brigade had something to latch on to and wet their collective pants over.

This exactly, coupled with what I mentioned in the post that Chris replied to - that supporters of LTNs haven't emphasised the right advantages of them and have instead used them as a way of wagging fingers at motorists. It's nothing special about motorists; any group that gets lectured to by Nanny takes the same stubborn position. This really should have been predictable.

[Chris5156]

This exactly, coupled with what I mentioned in the post that Chris replied to - that supporters of LTNs haven't emphasised the right advantages of them and have instead used them as a way of wagging fingers at motorists. It's nothing special about motorists; any group that gets lectured to by Nanny takes the same stubborn position. This really should have been predictable.

I didn't reply to that bit in your earlier post, but FWIW I do absolutely agree with it. Getting people to support a change means bringing them with you.

[M4 Cardiff]

Yes, definitely it's the arrogant 'I'm better than you' do-gooders that have caused this. Irrespective of whether what they are saying right, the way they are saying it causes the problem.

Also some local authorities have messed up in the implementation of some ltn schemes, and perhaps should re evaluate some details rather than get on their high horse and ignore criticism.

As for the issue of a government power grab, I don't think that at all. For a long time there has needed to be a system where if a local authority has messed up but doubles down rather than backing down, they can be forced to do so, without a long and expensive court case.

[Bryn666]

This exactly, coupled with what I mentioned in the post that Chris replied to - that supporters of LTNs haven't emphasised the right advantages of them and have instead used them as a way of wagging fingers at motorists. It's nothing special about motorists; any group that gets lectured to by Nanny takes the same stubborn position. This really should have been predictable.

I didn't reply to that bit in your earlier post, but FWIW I do absolutely agree with it. Getting people to support a change means bringing them with you.

The most vocal elements of the anti campaigns have no intention of being "brought with", so how does one achieve this is the question.

History tells us time and time again that you cannot reason with unreasonable people, and any engagement simply makes them louder. The old saying "starved of the oxygen if publicity" remains as relevant as ever.

Traffic engineering is one of those professions where everyone thinks they are one and therefore know better than anyone who does it for an actual job. Just because I can turn on a tap does not make me a plumber.

[Derek]

I didn't reply to that bit in your earlier post, but FWIW I do absolutely agree with it. Getting people to support a change means bringing them with you.

But bringing who with you? How about giving a little more attention to the people who are seriously inconvenienced by traffic? I'm thinking specifically about children who are probably the section of society who have lost the most thanks to cars dominating what used to be public space. But it's not just kids, how about people who can't for whatever reason drive? Old people, most disabled are also most likely to be restricted by traffic.

There are a huge number of reasons to cut through traffic from residential areas - and to go much further in reducing traffic generally. Of course drivers aren't going to like it and it may even be largely unpopular, but its something we really should do.

Also 20 is fast enough for built up areas. I live in a 20 zone and it's easy enough to drive. Slower traffic is less dominating, less anti social and much less threatening to cyclists.

In short, there are just way too many cars. When it's moving a normal sized car occupies around 8 Sq M of road space and more often than not only carries one person, SUV's of course use more. There just isn't room for cars in an urban environment.

To be adopting this policy of encouraging car use and of opposing 20 zones, LTN's etc is utter destructive madness. The reason they're doing it is because they hope that by encouraging the minority of petrol heads they can win under our first past the post voting system. Winning elections under FPTP isn't about getting a majority, all you need is around 30% of the popular vote as long as the opposition is split between two or more parties.

[FosseWay]

This exactly, coupled with what I mentioned in the post that Chris replied to - that supporters of LTNs haven't emphasised the right advantages of them and have instead used them as a way of wagging fingers at motorists. It's nothing special about motorists; any group that gets lectured to by Nanny takes the same stubborn position. This really should have been predictable.

I didn't reply to that bit in your earlier post, but FWIW I do absolutely agree with it. Getting people to support a change means bringing them with you.

The most vocal elements of the anti campaigns have no intention of being "brought with", so how does one achieve this is the question.

History tells us time and time again that you cannot reason with unreasonable people, and any engagement simply makes them louder. The old saying "starved of the oxygen if publicity" remains as relevant as ever.

You don't need to bring absolutely everyone with you to have the desired effect. When the NI peace process really got going, there were always some extremists on both sides who refused to engage, but the broad swathe of public opinion was behind the process and that's what counted. If we want to trade clichés, I'd suggest "empty vessels make most noise" applies here

Also, people who don't agree with a given measure are perfectly entitled to say so, regardless of how wrong you, I or anyone else thinks they are. Not necessarily on here, but there's more than a little "how dare you criticise us?" coming from the authorities, on this and on a number of other matters. And like the messaging on the implementation of LTNs in the first place, this attitude doesn't help increase public support.

Traffic engineering is one of those professions where everyone thinks they are one and therefore know better than anyone who does it for an actual job. Just because I can turn on a tap does not make me a plumber.

This is true, but if I turn a tap on and no water comes out, I know there's a problem, even if the plumber insists that the plumbing works. Much the same applies to users' views of various highway interventions, including all those cycle paths that "cyclists don't use" because they're functionally inferior to riding on the road. At the end of the day, all of this is supposed to benefit some or all users of the public highway - it's not an academic exercise undertaken in isolation. And if the end users say it doesn't work, it by definition doesn't work. Of course, you need to look at the detail of that - just because drivers don't like something doesn't mean it's not working excellently for pedestrians, for example - but ultimately it's the user experience that counts.

[Chris5156]

I didn't reply to that bit in your earlier post, but FWIW I do absolutely agree with it. Getting people to support a change means bringing them with you.

But bringing who with you? How about giving a little more attention to the people who are seriously inconvenienced by traffic? I'm thinking specifically about children who are probably the section of society who have lost the most thanks to cars dominating what used to be public space. But it's not just kids, how about people who can't for whatever reason drive? Old people, most disabled are also most likely to be restricted by traffic.

Bringing at least some of the sceptics and naysayers with you, rather than alienating them or leaving them behind, which is when vicious and vocal campaigns take root. I'm not arguing against LTNs or better facilities for active travel, I'm simply saying that the backlash against those things was not completely inevitable: if there had been more success in "selling" their benefits, and more success in building broad consensus for them, they would not have been so controversial.

[jnty]

I didn't reply to that bit in your earlier post, but FWIW I do absolutely agree with it. Getting people to support a change means bringing them with you.

But bringing who with you? How about giving a little more attention to the people who are seriously inconvenienced by traffic? I'm thinking specifically about children who are probably the section of society who have lost the most thanks to cars dominating what used to be public space. But it's not just kids, how about people who can't for whatever reason drive? Old people, most disabled are also most likely to be restricted by traffic.

Bringing at least some of the sceptics and naysayers with you, rather than alienating them or leaving them behind, which is when vicious and vocal campaigns take root. I'm not arguing against LTNs or better facilities for active travel, I'm simply saying that the backlash against those things was not completely inevitable: if there had been more success in "selling" their benefits, and more success in building broad consensus for them, they would not have been so controversial.

Rat run closures have always been a bit controversial, it's just everything gets spun into a big culture war now by click hungry press and politicians. In a world where making sure people are able to walk to the shops can be decried as a globalist conspiracy, everything is a battle.

[Helvellyn]

I didn't reply to that bit in your earlier post, but FWIW I do absolutely agree with it. Getting people to support a change means bringing them with you.

But bringing who with you? How about giving a little more attention to the people who are seriously inconvenienced by traffic? I'm thinking specifically about children who are probably the section of society who have lost the most thanks to cars dominating what used to be public space. But it's not just kids, how about people who can't for whatever reason drive? Old people, most disabled are also most likely to be restricted by traffic.

Bringing at least some of the sceptics and naysayers with you, rather than alienating them or leaving them behind, which is when vicious and vocal campaigns take root. I'm not arguing against LTNs or better facilities for active travel, I'm simply saying that the backlash against those things was not completely inevitable: if there had been more success in "selling" their benefits, and more success in building broad consensus for them, they would not have been so controversial.

I also think being more honest about the downsides would help. Any and every plan and scheme is treated as something wonderful and amazing. We've already demonstrated the issue with attacking anyone who disagrees - doing that certainly isn't going to change anyone's mind, but refusing to be honest about the negatives, refusing to admit that it will hurt some people, is part and parcel of the same problem.

A minor example of the issue - where I work has had to leave one building, and try to cram everything that was in there in to the rest of the site. That's obviously had downsides, but what was the presentation? "This is this wonderful refurb, opportunity etc.!" rather than "Yeah, we know this is going to be a bit crap, but we're stuck with these circumstances and this is the best we can do." The former just annoyed me and further lessened my opinion of some of the people running the place. The latter would've been honest, and would've resulted in a "fair enough, I can go along with that" attitude (at any rate as long as some better long-term plans were also being explored).

[Chris Bertram]

I didn't reply to that bit in your earlier post, but FWIW I do absolutely agree with it. Getting people to support a change means bringing them with you.

But bringing who with you? How about giving a little more attention to the people who are seriously inconvenienced by traffic? I'm thinking specifically about children who are probably the section of society who have lost the most thanks to cars dominating what used to be public space. But it's not just kids, how about people who can't for whatever reason drive? Old people, most disabled are also most likely to be restricted by traffic.

Bringing at least some of the sceptics and naysayers with you, rather than alienating them or leaving them behind, which is when vicious and vocal campaigns take root. I'm not arguing against LTNs or better facilities for active travel, I'm simply saying that the backlash against those things was not completely inevitable: if there had been more success in "selling" their benefits, and more success in building broad consensus for them, they would not have been so controversial.

This. Treating all critics as "the enemy" who must be fought at every turn, retreating into the bunker where you only hear opinions that correspond with your own, this is not good practice in any business. And as Helvellyn has said, admitting that there will be side-effects, some of them detrimental and potentially quite significant, is just good old honesty. Where LTNs and reduced speed limits are concerned, there has been a tendency to hand-wave these away and this has convinced nobody.

[jnty]

From the rhetoric here you'd think local councils were sending in jackbooted soldiers to turn back cars at gunpoint. We are talking about minor traffic schemes implemented by elected officials subject to legal process. Nobody is retreating into bunkers or denouncing enemies of the state. I'm quite sure that there are reports buried in every council archive that explain that the downside of a road closure is that you're no longer able to command a motor vehicle from one side of it to the other, obvious as this is to all but the least initiated reader. But it's hardly despotic to state the reasons you plan to do something - in fact, isn't it a legal requirement for TROs?

Where LTNs and reduced speed limits are concerned, there has been a tendency to hand-wave these away and this has convinced nobody.

Repeated local polling undertaken by many different organisations in areas affected by LTNs and speed limit reductions reveals that quite a lot of people are pretty convinced, as it happens. Not least the ones who already live in a filtered or 20mph limit area and have done for years.

[Chris Bertram]

From the rhetoric here you'd think local councils were sending in jackbooted soldiers to turn back cars at gunpoint. We are talking about minor traffic schemes implemented by elected officials subject to legal process. Nobody is retreating into bunkers or denouncing enemies of the state. I'm quite sure that there are reports buried in every council archive that explain that the downside of a road closure is that you're no longer able to command a motor vehicle from one side of it to the other, obvious as this is to all but the least initiated reader. But it's hardly despotic to state the reasons you plan to do something - in fact, isn't it a legal requirement for TROs?

Where LTNs and reduced speed limits are concerned, there has been a tendency to hand-wave these away and this has convinced nobody.

Repeated local polling undertaken by many different organisations in areas affected by LTNs and speed limit reductions reveals that quite a lot of people are pretty convinced, as it happens. Not least the ones who already live in a filtered or 20mph limit area and have done for years.

But not the ones who live immediately outside and suffer the negative consequences. They get ignored when they dare to speak up. Sorry, but you can't just dismiss this out of hand. Local experience tells me that this is the case. The window posters protesting about the increased pollution in Vicarage Road B14 have been up since the start of the LTN and have not been taken down.

[jnty]

From the rhetoric here you'd think local councils were sending in jackbooted soldiers to turn back cars at gunpoint. We are talking about minor traffic schemes implemented by elected officials subject to legal process. Nobody is retreating into bunkers or denouncing enemies of the state. I'm quite sure that there are reports buried in every council archive that explain that the downside of a road closure is that you're no longer able to command a motor vehicle from one side of it to the other, obvious as this is to all but the least initiated reader. But it's hardly despotic to state the reasons you plan to do something - in fact, isn't it a legal requirement for TROs?

Where LTNs and reduced speed limits are concerned, there has been a tendency to hand-wave these away and this has convinced nobody.

Repeated local polling undertaken by many different organisations in areas affected by LTNs and speed limit reductions reveals that quite a lot of people are pretty convinced, as it happens. Not least the ones who already live in a filtered or 20mph limit area and have done for years.

But not the ones who live immediately outside and suffer the negative consequences. They get ignored when they dare to speak up. Sorry, but you can't just dismiss this out of hand. Local experience tells me that this is the case. The window posters protesting about the increased pollution in Vicarage Road B14 have been up since the start of the LTN and have not been taken down.

If only there were some way of measuring pollution levels rather than relying on anecdotal evidence to detect a largely imperceptible phenomenon.

In any case, filtered roads don't cause pollution, vehicles do. If the pollution is really so bad that it's that perceptible, it sounds like they desperately need a ULEZ.

[Piatkow]

But bringing who with you? How about giving a little more attention to the people who are seriously inconvenienced by traffic? I'm thinking specifically about children who are probably the section of society who have lost the most thanks to cars dominating what used to be public space. But it's not just kids, how about people who can't for whatever reason drive? Old people, most disabled are also most likely to be restricted by traffic.

Bringing at least some of the sceptics and naysayers with you, rather than alienating them or leaving them behind, which is when vicious and vocal campaigns take root. I'm not arguing against LTNs or better facilities for active travel, I'm simply saying that the backlash against those things was not completely inevitable: if there had been more success in "selling" their benefits, and more success in building broad consensus for them, they would not have been so controversial.

Rat run closures have always been a bit controversial, it's just everything gets spun into a big culture war now by click hungry press and politicians. In a world where making sure people are able to walk to the shops can be decried as a globalist conspiracy, everything is a battle.

I can remember being caught out by rat run closures over 30 years ago. The problem has developed from inventing a special name for them..

[Chris Bertram]

From the rhetoric here you'd think local councils were sending in jackbooted soldiers to turn back cars at gunpoint. We are talking about minor traffic schemes implemented by elected officials subject to legal process. Nobody is retreating into bunkers or denouncing enemies of the state. I'm quite sure that there are reports buried in every council archive that explain that the downside of a road closure is that you're no longer able to command a motor vehicle from one side of it to the other, obvious as this is to all but the least initiated reader. But it's hardly despotic to state the reasons you plan to do something - in fact, isn't it a legal requirement for TROs?

Repeated local polling undertaken by many different organisations in areas affected by LTNs and speed limit reductions reveals that quite a lot of people are pretty convinced, as it happens. Not least the ones who already live in a filtered or 20mph limit area and have done for years.

But not the ones who live immediately outside and suffer the negative consequences. They get ignored when they dare to speak up. Sorry, but you can't just dismiss this out of hand. Local experience tells me that this is the case. The window posters protesting about the increased pollution in Vicarage Road B14 have been up since the start of the LTN and have not been taken down.

If only there were some way of measuring pollution levels rather than relying on anecdotal evidence to detect a largely imperceptible phenomenon.

In any case, filtered roads don't cause pollution, vehicles do. If the pollution is really so bad that it's that perceptible, it sounds like they desperately need a ULEZ.

If only they'd set some baselines before implementation to measure success against, such as air quality (hint - they didn't), vehicle flows (hint - they didn't), numbers of cyclists (hint - they didn't) and people walking (hint - they didn't). The scheme has, of course, been declared "successful" by it's promoters, but on what basis nobody can be sure. The data simply isn't there.

And sure, it's vehicles that emit fumes, but if those vehicles didn't have to be in that place because of road blocks elsewhere, well I think you get my drift.

[jnty]

If only they'd set some baselines before implementation to measure success against, such as air quality (hint - they didn't), vehicle flows (hint - they didn't), numbers of cyclists (hint - they didn't) and people walking (hint - they didn't). The scheme has, of course, been declared "successful" by it's promoters, but on what basis nobody can be sure. The data simply isn't there.

Given that I think the schemes you're talking about were implemented during the pandemic I don't think that's as unreasonable as it sounds. What matters is the air quality readings now. Are they unsafely high, or excessive relative to other areas of the city?

And sure, it's vehicles that emit fumes, but if those vehicles didn't have to be in that place because of road blocks elsewhere, well I think you get my drift.

Now who's foisting air pollution on other people? A proper hierarchy of roads mean even people who live on the main roads can select walking routes which avoid them. Smearing it across the city doesn't make things better.

[A303Chris]

This is the actual plan for drivers published on Wednesday.

Several of the points refer to EVCP's and lane rental for Councils but the main thrust for the electorate are as follows:

We’re also stopping unfair enforcement by:

issuing 20mph zone guidance for England to help prevent inappropriate blanket use.

consulting on measures including the removal of local authorities’ access to DVLA data to enforce such schemes by camera.

focusing on the importance of local support and consider as part of the LTN review how to address existing LTNs that have not secured local consent.

strengthening government and sector-led guidance on enforcement of moving traffic offences such as entering yellow box junctions, to ensure consistency and stop drivers from being penalised unfairly.

launching a call for evidence on options to restrict local authorities’ ability to generate surpluses from traffic offences and over-zealous use of traffic enforcement powers.

We’re making parking easier by:

delivering the new National Parking Platform by autumn 2024, ending the need to use multiple parking apps.

consulting on revising guidance about the public’s right to challenge local authority parking policies.

introducing digitised traffic regulation orders to help easily identify where it is legal to park anywhere in the country.

The parking app is good but if you stop access to the DVLA that is a lot of cameras which will become redundant.

[Chris Bertram]

Given that I think the schemes you're talking about were implemented during the pandemic I don't think that's as unreasonable as it sounds.

That just sounds like "excuses, excuses". In fact I don't think there was ever any intention to set a "before" baseline compared with which the "after" data might risk looking unfavourable. This was a political scheme from day 1, and destined to be declared a "success" by those with an interest in it regardless of the lack of data to prove or disprove it. Hence also the sham "consultations" about where the next lot of road blocks might go. Again, there was never any chance that the answer "no thanks" would be accepted.

I know this happens with a lot of council schemes, and not just LTNs. But it's uncommon for there to be quite the pushback against it that the LTN scheme hereabouts has received.

[DB617]

I am surprised Sunak didn't have a larger internal backlash from some of these proposals, which amount to becoming 'the party of big government', namely removing access to DVLA and taking more control over Councils' ability to impose traffic restrictions and 20mph speed limits.

[jnty]

Given that I think the schemes you're talking about were implemented during the pandemic I don't think that's as unreasonable as it sounds.

That just sounds like "excuses, excuses". In fact I don't think there was ever any intention to set a "before" baseline compared with which the "after" data might risk looking unfavourable. This was a political scheme from day 1, and destined to be declared a "success" by those with an interest in it regardless of the lack of data to prove or disprove it. Hence also the sham "consultations" about where the next lot of road blocks might go. Again, there was never any chance that the answer "no thanks" would be accepted.

I know this happens with a lot of council schemes, and not just LTNs. But it's uncommon for there to be quite the pushback against it that the LTN scheme hereabouts has received.

How do you set a baseline when nobody is driving and the world has turned upside down? In any case, it's pretty uncontested that, in principle, having less traffic on residential streets is generally a positive thing. Therefore, the test should be more objective - are there now issues in surrounding streets that would attract some kind of other intervention? If the main road is maybe slightly more busy at peak times but still broadly functioning fine then, fundamentally, it's just doing it's job and there's probably no need to do anything. But if there's serious issues, you can then consider interventions to deal with that, which may involve reconfiguration of the LTN but could also involve junction adjustments or a low emission zone etc. Of course, when looked at from that perspective, the idea of attempting to 'solve' one allegedly polluted street by making sure adjacent residential streets are polluted too seems a bit mad. But before you consider that, you need to objectively establish that there is a pollution issue on the main road - is that the case in your example?