Government approach to local authority road measures

[WHBM]

Considerable comment in recent days about government getting to grips with various local authority road measures

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66965714

Now many of these points have been discussed here in the past. But noticeable how they have all come together.

For me, it is undesirable how politicised it has become. 20 schemes, sometimes the whole area, in Labour administrations but not Conservative. Or even the LTN schemes on the border between Lewisham and Greenwich boroughs in London, which have diverted traffic from one onto the roads of the other.

One would really hope for national standards, devised properly by engineers, for where 20 is reasonable, and where it is not, which local authorities, and their own highway engineers, are there to apply.

If local authorities were able to devise ULEZ, congestion charge, area parking, etc schemes, but the revenue went to the national government with just the actual installation costs reimbursed, one wonders what difference that would make - because the justifications never mention any revenue gain.

[DB617]

Considerable comment in recent days about government getting to grips with various local authority road measures

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66965714

Now many of these points have been discussed here in the past. But noticeable how they have all come together.

For me, it is undesirable how politicised it has become. 20 schemes, sometimes the whole area, in Labour administrations but not Conservative. Or even the LTN schemes on the border between Lewisham and Greenwich boroughs in London, which have diverted traffic from one onto the roads of the other.

One would really hope for national standards, devised properly by engineers, for where 20 is reasonable, and where it is not, which local authorities, and their own highway engineers, are there to apply.

If local authorities were able to devise ULEZ, congestion charge, area parking, etc schemes, but the revenue went to the national government with just the actual installation costs reimbursed, one wonders what difference that would make - because the justifications never mention any revenue gain.

This stuff is really disappointing and worrying because of how it favours 'popular opinion' over research. I study at one of the two leading transport research centres in the UK and am acutely aware of the sheer volume of research that has gone into MfS2, LTN 1/20, etc as well as the influence it has had on general planning policy. Every single thing that Sunak has proposed flies in the face of current research and (what should be) practice for highway authorities and planners. The only hope we really have as an industry right now is that it comes to nothing within this Parliament due to getting stuck in committee, taking too long to flesh out the details, etc. On the other hand a Ministerial Direction to MHCLG dictating local authority policy changes effective immediately would be a disaster. We can only wait and see.

But seriously, for someone studying MfS2 based design and garden village planning policy as we speak, the fact the government is pushing conspiracy theories that we're all anti-motorist, anti-freedom is really quite demoralising. Between that and my part-time role in the water industry it is quite the moral battering.

[AndyB]

Same old “who needs experts” squeaky wheel getting the oil, and the fake news about the war on motorists, when the war has always been on those who can’t avoid driving perpetrated by those who could use public transport if they wanted.

[WHBM]

... perpetrated by those who could use public transport if they wanted.

But they don't want to use public transport. Likely because it is far less convenient, if not impossible to use for what they want to do.

[Nicola_Jayne]

Same old “who needs experts” squeaky wheel getting the oil, and the fake news about the war on motorists, when the war has always been on those who can’t avoid driving perpetrated by those who could use public transport if they wanted.

thge Selfservatives really are hoping that the ignorant and bigoted will repalce the ever diminishing numbers of Cured Pork Product Boomers that have propped them up - however given said boomers seem to hell bent of ensure their demise by ignoring basic infection preventio nadcontrol measures

[AndyB]

... perpetrated by those who could use public transport if they wanted.

But they don't want to use public transport. Likely because it is far less convenient, if not impossible to use for what they want to do.

If it’s impossible to use for what they want to do, then they can’t avoid driving.

“Less convenient” is in the eye of the beholder. “Less convenient” too often means that they want to walk further from the nearest car park to their office than the distance from the equivalent bus stops to home and office, and making it less convenient for those who can’t make their journey by public transport.

The key problem is that there is a large number of road users who could not reasonably use public transport, and they and the economy at large are being harmed by those who could reasonably use public transport but choose to create congestion instead.

[Bryn666]

Desperate nonsense from a flatlining PM who would rather keep a 20% vote share from angry red faced entitled motorists than consider improving the country for everyone.

It was a Tory government that started this "war on motorists" by introducing 20 Zones in 1990 and encouraging traffic calming and speed cameras in 1992.

Oh and the fuel duty escalator.

Revisionist right wing bores at it again.

[Chris Bertram]

This is obvious kite-flying and unlikely to get near to being on the statute book before the Tories get ejected from government. If he comes up with a proposal that there should be a strong presumption against 20 limits on Class I, II and III roads, on the basis that these are roads identified as being of strategic importance nationally or locally for through traffic, I could get behind that. But somehow I doubt that we'll get anything as definite as that.

[B1040]

They don't want councils to enforce yellow boxes.
That's war on (some) motorists.

Although if junctions seize up, nobody moves, often the real problem is the next set of lights along the road

[Chris Bertram]

They don't want councils to enforce yellow boxes.
That's war on (some) motorists.

Although if junctions seize up, nobody moves, often the real problem is the next set of lights along the road

Certain councils, such as Hammersmith and Fulham LBC have developed a reputation for predatory enforcement of yellow boxes via camera. Yes, the meaning of a yellow box is clear, but is the box itself perhaps designed to be hard to clear because of signal timings? If a particular movement never gets a clear box to cross because of this, then you can understand drivers trying to force the issue. Maybe the council concerned is enjoying the revenue it gets from this source just a bit too much.

[Helvellyn]

Disappointing to see people getting worked up and defending the nonsense that's the plague of speed limit reductions because someone from the wrong party's had enough of them.

[darkcape]

Disappointing to see people getting worked up and defending the nonsense that's the plague of speed limit reductions because someone from the wrong party's had enough of them.

What's more disappointing is the constant stream of news stories of road deaths & injuries. I'll happily slow down to avoid adding to those statistics

[Bryn666]

Disappointing to see people getting worked up and defending the nonsense that's the plague of speed limit reductions because someone from the wrong party's had enough of them.

What's more disappointing is the constant stream of news stories of road deaths & injuries. I'll happily slow down to avoid adding to those statistics

If any party was pushing this drivel Sunak is going for I'd be criticising it. Two people died in a coach crash the day Sunak announced this. The irony of the Daily Express crowing that the "war on motorists" is over whilst lamenting a teenager dying in a coach crash was not lost on me.

[Herned]

Disappointing to see people getting worked up and defending the nonsense that's the plague of speed limit reductions because someone from the wrong party's had enough of them.

The party that introduced them, expanded them, supported them routinely, and is NOW changing it's mind because it's desperate to avoid a landslide defeat.

Evidence-led policy would be much, much better. As would reducing road deaths

[AnOrdinarySABREUser]

Disappointing to see people getting worked up and defending the nonsense that's the plague of speed limit reductions because someone from the wrong party's had enough of them.

What will the next couple of plagues entail? Traffic calming? LTNs? The removal of ratruns? Oh, the calamity of it all...

[Helvellyn]

Disappointing to see people getting worked up and defending the nonsense that's the plague of speed limit reductions because someone from the wrong party's had enough of them.

What's more disappointing is the constant stream of news stories of road deaths & injuries. I'll happily slow down to avoid adding to those statistics

The only speed you can slow down to that'll guarantee not adding to them is zero. The harsh reality of, well, reality is at what point do we start finding the risks less obnoxious than the means to deal with them?

[Helvellyn]

Disappointing to see people getting worked up and defending the nonsense that's the plague of speed limit reductions because someone from the wrong party's had enough of them.

What will the next couple of plagues entail? Traffic calming? LTNs? The removal of ratruns? Oh, the calamity of it all...

If gone overboard with, yes. There's a time and a place, unfortunately current attitudes, which I see are rather prevalent in certain quarters here too, are so busy jumping at shadows when it comes to anything to do with traffic that they're incapable of seeing past the "anything that might slow traffic down is good and must not be questioned."

[Helvellyn]

Disappointing to see people getting worked up and defending the nonsense that's the plague of speed limit reductions because someone from the wrong party's had enough of them.

The party that introduced them, expanded them, supported them routinely, and is NOW changing it's mind because it's desperate to avoid a landslide defeat.

Evidence-led policy would be much, much better. As would reducing road deaths

Evidence-led to what end? The evidence can tell you what the situation is and what the likely outcomes are, so a firm grip of it is very necessary when making decisions. Reducing road deaths (any deaths) is, of course, desirable in its own right. But as pointed out above where do you draw the line, because "anything is good if it prevents one death" is a descent in to absurdity. And that question about where you draw the line isn't one that can be reached by evidence, because it's ultimately subjective.

I think we'd probably all agree that we shouldn't expect anyone to face a risk we wouldn't face ourself. But I believe there's a corollary to that - how much should we expect to change to reduce risks we are happy enough to face anyway? Maybe you can point at the personal risk view of it as selfish (not entirely without justification), but I think it's more honest than trying to use others, because that frequently comes across as an attempt to guilt-trip rather than reason.

The real problem is that it's impossible to really have an honest discussion on this subject, as the various responses I've received clearly demonstrate.

[AnOrdinarySABREUser]

If gone overboard with, yes. There's a time and a place, unfortunately current attitudes, which I see are rather prevalent in certain quarters here too, are so busy jumping at shadows when it comes to anything to do with traffic that they're incapable of seeing past the "anything that might slow traffic down is good and must not be questioned."

Evidence-led to what end? The evidence can tell you what the situation is and what the likely outcomes are, so a firm grip of it is very necessary when making decisions. Reducing road deaths (any deaths) is, of course, desirable in its own right. But as pointed out above where do you draw the line, because "anything is good if it prevents one death" is a descent in to absurdity. And that question about where you draw the line isn't one that can be reached by evidence, because it's ultimately subjective.

I think we'd probably all agree that we shouldn't expect anyone to face a risk we wouldn't face ourself. But I believe there's a corollary to that - how much should we expect to change to reduce risks we are happy enough to face anyway? Maybe you can point at the personal risk view of it as selfish (not entirely without justification), but I think it's more honest than trying to use others, because that frequently comes across as an attempt to guilt-trip rather than reason.

The real problem is that it's impossible to really have an honest discussion on this subject, as the various responses I've received clearly demonstrate.

(I suppose that we're going to ignore more sustainable forms of transport here too as it slows traffic down.)

[Helvellyn]

My point proven, thank you.

Still, sad that you appear to be shocked by it, because what, actually, when faced with the reality of the world, do you actually have a problem with? And please try not to respond with some strawman that pretends I'm saying "nothing should ever be done" or "people should be able to fly around as fast as they feel like" - because it appears that that's the conclusion you've somehow jumped to. I certainly have NOT said "anything that slows traffic down is bad," so the small font comment is irrelevant. And an example of the sort of reason I find it hard to believe it's possible to have this discussion in bad faith.

FWIW (and I think I may have said this on the Wales thread) although I'm against the general adoption of 20 mph zones it's a sensible enough upper limit on most residential side streets (and frequently town centres), but otherwise not on through routes.