Government approach to local authority road measures

[exiled]

I'm not 100% how it works. But, isn't it that the Westminster government is for the United Kingdom, and that the Scots/Welsh parliaments are for Scotland and Wales. So Scotland and Wales are part of the UK, yet have representation both locally and nationally... Sunak as head of the Westminster government can indeed act nationally. I don't think we've come across the situation yet where legally Westminster and say the Senedd act in opposite directions, I don't think it would, because they would decide on a compromise or agree that one has the overall say on the matter concerned, but it could happen.

We saw in the covid response for example that Boris initially locked down and I think this did initially apply to the whole UK but at later points it was deemed appropriate for the UK government to act only on England and allow the Scottish and Welsh governments to act locally, which is why we had some variance and indeed some silliness like clothes aisles in Welsh supermarkets being cordoned off.

Even in that time there was friction between Gov policy and local politicians within England like Sadiq Khan and Andy Burnham...

It depends on what issue is at question. There are reserved matters which are reserved to Westminster. Defence, foreign affairs, Johnson's affairs. and so on. Some instances are devolved to Scotland and not to Wales, and Westminster is responsible for England and Wales. There are instances where issues are devolved to Wales and not to Scotland.

Devolution means that Scotland, Wales, and England will act differently. You mentioned Covid, health is devolved to Scotland and Wales, and policing to Scotland. It had to be a decision between the three governments and with differences if Edinburgh, Cardiff, and Westminster diagreed. But we have seen calls for these powers to be removed because 'they make the Tories look bad'. Well that is the real reason, the actual reason was uniformity of approach.

The thing is with devolution as with federalism is the sub sovereign units have to be able to exercise their powers without looking to see what teacher will say. If they breach the relevant acts or constitution fine, let the courts decide. But if it is a power given to Cardiff, it is Cardiff that chooses, and the Welsh voters decides next election.

[jnty]

Sunak has proven he hates localism more than Johnson could ever have dreamt of.

Not just localism, he appears to be picking arguments with Edinburgh and Cardiff over areas of devolved competences such as the 20 mph in Wales. Even Johnson seemed to realise the Welsh and Scottish Governments had their own mandated responsible to their electorates via the Senedd and Scottish Parliament. Sunak seems to think both should be branch offices of Downing Street.

I'm not 100% how it works. But, isn't it that the Westminster government is for the United Kingdom, and that the Scots/Welsh parliaments are for Scotland and Wales. So Scotland and Wales are part of the UK, yet have representation both locally and nationally... Sunak as head of the Westminster government can indeed act nationally. I don't think we've come across the situation yet where legally Westminster and say the Senedd act in opposite directions, I don't think it would, because they would decide on a compromise or agree that one has the overall say on the matter concerned, but it could happen.

We saw in the covid response for example that Boris initially locked down and I think this did initially apply to the whole UK but at later points it was deemed appropriate for the UK government to act only on England and allow the Scottish and Welsh governments to act locally, which is why we had some variance and indeed some silliness like clothes aisles in Welsh supermarkets being cordoned off.

Even in that time there was friction between Gov policy and local politicians within England like Sadiq Khan and Andy Burnham...

While parliamentary sovereignty means that, theoretically, Westminster could pass any law covering a devolved competency or indeed totally abolish the devolved administrations tomorrow, constitutional convention dictates that Westminster legislates on devolved matters only with the consent of the relevant devolved legislature. Executive functions are discharged only by the devolved executive - public health is totally devolved, which is how England ended up having one more lockdown than Scotland.

[darkcape]

Telling local authorities they can't have 20 limits or traffic calming is exactly what they are proposing. That will cause road deaths to rise.

The rational is where there is need for a 20mph them impose it there, a blanket 20 mph just results in it being ignored even when it is appropriate.

Whether you agree or not these is clear evidence that inappropriate speed limits are more dangerous in the long run.

What "clear evidence"?

[Bryn666]

Telling local authorities they can't have 20 limits or traffic calming is exactly what they are proposing. That will cause road deaths to rise.

The rational is where there is need for a 20mph them impose it there, a blanket 20 mph just results in it being ignored even when it is appropriate.

Whether you agree or not these is clear evidence that inappropriate speed limits are more dangerous in the long run.

What "clear evidence"?

TalkTV, GB News, and the Daily Mail?

[FosseWay]

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.

Are people who live on "through routes" less important? That's the issue, in a great deal of places the main road is still a residential street. Why should the people driving through somewhere prevail over the residents?

I'm mostly on the same side as you in these debates, but the above is way too simplistic. It's not a question of people being more or less important; it's to do with their choices. If you choose to live on what you know already is a main road with plenty of traffic on it, then you accept both the cons (more noise, need to keep kids/dogs under closer control) and the pros (probably got a bus stop a few tens of metres away, and it may well be a road with other amenities like shops that you don't have to travel so far for). It's the same as your choice of residence for other reasons. If you have a large and energetic dog, you avoid living in a poky flat with no garden. If you enjoy heavy metal at 3 a.m. you make sure you're not peeing your neighbours off, or you avoid having neighbours. If peace and quiet outside your front door, or the ability to wander around in the middle of the road, are important to you, you don't live on an arterial road.

Individual residents moaning that the traffic is too fast or noisy on their road are in principle no less selfish and dogmatic than individual motorists objecting to LTNs and speed reductions. When we're talking about a whole road or area, never mind the environment as a whole, it is society's good that surely must come uppermost. And there are cases where society is best served by allowing traffic to make reasonable progress and others where the needs of the people who live there are paramount.

[Herned]

I'm mostly on the same side as you in these debates, but the above is way too simplistic. It's not a question of people being more or less important; it's to do with their choices. If you choose to live on what you know already is a main road with plenty of traffic on it, then you accept both the cons (more noise, need to keep kids/dogs under closer control) and the pros (probably got a bus stop a few tens of metres away, and it may well be a road with other amenities like shops that you don't have to travel so far for). It's the same as your choice of residence for other reasons.

That assumes there is a deliberate choice, which is absolutely not the case for a lot of people.

Property on main roads is cheaper, generally, and it is the poorest in society who end up living there. They bear the brunt of the physical danger from both traffic and pollution. Is that what we aspire to?

[FosseWay]

That assumes there is a deliberate choice, which is absolutely not the case for a lot of people.

Property on main roads is cheaper, generally, and it is the poorest in society who end up living there. They bear the brunt of the physical danger from both traffic and pollution. Is that what we aspire to?

I wondered about what you imply before posting what I wrote. Firstly, the same issue of societal benefit still arises: yes, you can argue that it is unfair on certain people that the road outside is heavily used, but equally you can argue that it's unfair on a lot of other people if you make it unreasonably difficult to use obvious routes to obvious destinations. Bear in mind that if you block access, reduce speed limits and install humps etc. on main roads, it affects everyone, not just private motorists. Life is unfair, unfortunately, and if you specifically want to address issues relating to poverty and housing, you're better off looking at the causes of poverty than putting lipstick on a pig (which messing with the traffic outside a substandard housing block would invariably be).

But more relevantly to this conversation, are you sure about the statement that it's the poorest who live on main roads? I don't know the answer either, so this isn't a criticism or an attempt to say you're wrong, but my gut feeling is that the most deprived housing is actually on those so-called "sink estates" or in high-rises where one of the complaints from residents and the police is that it's not open enough and there are too many alleyways where people can lurk. Actually, if you look at the arterial roads heading into city centres, they are often lined with well-appointed, large semi-detached houses. Look, for example, at the Banbury and Woodstock Roads in Oxford, the Ecclesall and Abbeydale Roads in Sheffield and the Lisburn Road in Belfast. These may not be where the richest choose to live (they live in leafy suburbs or out in the country) but that's not the same as saying they're where the poorest, and those with least choice, have to live.

[Herned]

But more relevantly to this conversation, are you sure about the statement that it's the poorest who live on main roads? I don't know the answer either, so this isn't a criticism or an attempt to say you're wrong, but my gut feeling is that the most deprived housing is actually on those so-called "sink estates" or in high-rises where one of the complaints from residents and the police is that it's not open enough and there are too many alleyways where people can lurk. Actually, if you look at the arterial roads heading into city centres, they are often lined with well-appointed, large semi-detached houses. Look, for example, at the Banbury and Woodstock Roads in Oxford, the Ecclesall and Abbeydale Roads in Sheffield and the Lisburn Road in Belfast. These may not be where the richest choose to live (they live in leafy suburbs or out in the country) but that's not the same as saying they're where the poorest, and those with least choice, have to live.

That's a fair point, it's not an absolute, and clearly there are differences between main roads. But where there are houses or blocks of flats directly on main roads, they are generally cheaper than a few streets back - googling for articles suggests 10-20% is common. Obviously some people will choose to buy/rent because they are getting a better deal, but I suspect a minority of people would make that choice deliberately

[Bryn666]

Having demolished most of the houses on radial roads in Manchester in the 60s for motorways that never happened (the idea being you'd live in a gorgeous concrete slab development of the Hulme and Fort Beswick style), there are now plenty of areas where new homes have been plonked right up against the back of the footway. Ostensibly this is to "recreate community" but these are all clearly car-dependent based developments as none of them have considered the original communities had corner shops and pubs so you're still going to drive to the nearest Tesco Extra. I'm not sure I'd personally choose to live on, say, the A664 or A57 out of Manchester. People are basically left with whatever they can afford and these will crop up into that list.

The problem is not so much this, but the radial routes in question would've been ideal for widening to provide bus and cycle routes before houses were slapped back in the way of any future improvements. There are now pinch points guaranteed forever, so trebles all round.

Of course, Sunak isn't going to upset his mates in the house building industry by telling them their slapdash approach to design is why urban areas are screwed and why driving is so miserable for those forced to do it anyway, is he?

[WHBM]

But more relevantly to this conversation, are you sure about the statement that it's the poorest who live on main roads?

A property agent, who dealt with houses "part-exchanged" with new houses that the mainstream builders sold, told me that houses on main roads sold quickest. We all showed surprise, and they said that's just how it is.

[jnty]

I'm mostly on the same side as you in these debates, but the above is way too simplistic. It's not a question of people being more or less important; it's to do with their choices. If you choose to live on what you know already is a main road with plenty of traffic on it, then you accept both the cons (more noise, need to keep kids/dogs under closer control) and the pros (probably got a bus stop a few tens of metres away, and it may well be a road with other amenities like shops that you don't have to travel so far for). It's the same as your choice of residence for other reasons.

That assumes there is a deliberate choice, which is absolutely not the case for a lot of people.

Property on main roads is cheaper, generally, and it is the poorest in society who end up living there. They bear the brunt of the physical danger from both traffic and pollution. Is that what we aspire to?

The point of LTNs is not to turn main roads into car sewers lined with slums. It is to enforce a sensible hierarchy of roads which can be maintained economically where danger can be effectively controlled. Properly designed and filtered residential roads should require minimal ongoing road safety or maintenance intervention in the form of eg. controlled crossings or segregated cycleways because traffic levels and speeds are kept low. LTNs can be seen as a correction of previously substandard road design in this respect. The trade-off is then that resources are kept available for providing high quality infrastructure on the existing main roads. This often involves signalised junctions and crossings as well as high-quality pavements and segregated infrastructure which may well link in to formal or informal 'quiet routes' through residential roads which avoid the bulk of motor traffic. The availability of this infrastructure and quieter routes benefits everyone in the area no matter where they live.

Well-designed filtering schemes ensure traffic uses existing main roads rather than residential rat runs. Those main roads may see an increase in traffic, but they will generally have been busy before and this will have already posed road safety and pleasantness issues. If the road is substandard and these issues aren't appropriately dealt with, then this is a separate pre-existing issue. Of course, accommodating the needs of all users of space in a city is easier said than done - it is a constant source of conflict and is the perennial challenge of urban design. This has always been the case though - it's not some new issue which a nearby LTN has conjured into existence. You don't solve an unsafe road by smearing the traffic across a neighbourhood - you end up with more unsafe roads which harm more people. If anything, enforcing a hierarchy of roads makes things better by providing a better network of alternatives.

[aj444]

Telling local authorities they can't have 20 limits or traffic calming is exactly what they are proposing. That will cause road deaths to rise.

It's just a headline designed for a bit of Labour-bashing that's all, no doubt before the election we'll get double doses of LEZ zones coming to you and 20mph speed limits on a Motorway near you. It will all be quietly forgotten about after the next election regardless of which numpty we choose this time. Remember the plan to abolish speed limits at night (or whatever it was)...?

Responding to a Daily Mail "war on motorist" headline with "think of the children" is exactly the idea the idea behind the headline, it turns it into a "battle which must be won" and sells papers.

[FosseWay]

Responding to a Daily Mail "war on motorist" headline with "think of the children" is exactly the idea the idea behind the headline, it turns it into a "battle which must be won" and sells papers.

Yes, there's a lot of truth in this.

FWIW I think many of the proponents of LTNs and more 20 limits don't do themselves any favours by banging on about safety to the exclusion of all else.

Yes, too many people die on the roads and if we can take reasonable steps to reduce that, I don't think anyone sensible will object. But most people most of the time do not equate going out on the roads - regardless of travel mode - with skydiving, whitewater rafting or clearing mines in Donbas. On the other hand, if the air stinks of fumes, there's a lot of traffic noise or their car/postbox/fence keeps getting swiped by people driving past because there's not room for the amount of traffic, they definitely notice and object.

It's interesting to compare the way this particular culture war plays out in the UK and in Sweden. In both places, you get the usual moans about speed limits being too high or too low because Reasons. But the whole concept of LTNs has been so comprehensively designed into the structure of more or less any residential area that's not just a village in the back of beyond, there isn't even a special term for it in Swedish. It just is how it is, because it's self-evidently more pleasant (and also safer) to live in an area where the only traffic driving around has business there, and it's (mostly) driving at a speed that doesn't cause lots of noise, vibration or danger.

IMV planners should be majoring on these QoL benefits rather than on safety and certainly rather than on "getting people out of their cars". People tend to be thrawn beggars and if they're told by do-gooders that they shouldn't use their car so much, they're likely to use it more out of sheer badness. Emphasise the positives, and in the order that people are likely to regard them as positive. Less pollution, less noise, more pleasant to walk/cycle round the neighbourhood, easier to park, easier for delivery wagons to drop off and turn round, and yes, safer (but that's a way down the list). Backpedal a bit on the finger-wagging about cycling or getting the bus, because (if other places with LTN-like structures are anything to go by) these things will follow naturally.

[jnty]

Responding to a Daily Mail "war on motorist" headline with "think of the children" is exactly the idea the idea behind the headline, it turns it into a "battle which must be won" and sells papers.

Yes, there's a lot of truth in this.

FWIW I think many of the proponents of LTNs and more 20 limits don't do themselves any favours by banging on about safety to the exclusion of all else.

Yes, too many people die on the roads and if we can take reasonable steps to reduce that, I don't think anyone sensible will object. But most people most of the time do not equate going out on the roads - regardless of travel mode - with skydiving, whitewater rafting or clearing mines in Donbas. On the other hand, if the air stinks of fumes, there's a lot of traffic noise or their car/postbox/fence keeps getting swiped by people driving past because there's not room for the amount of traffic, they definitely notice and object.

It's very telling that the most successful anti LTN attack lines seem to centre on them focusing traffic on to certain roads, rather than arguing that having traffic on the filtered roads is fine. It seems everyone can agree that traffic is objectionable, they just can't agree on what to do about it.

[SteveA30]

Perhaps all these new bus schemes that are apparently about to be announced can go some way to sorting this out. If all towns had a London style bus network, LTN's may be less necessary. Re-regulation in other words. De- regulation was entirely predictably, the profit chasing disaster it turned out to be. Put the competitors out of business by slashing fares. As soon as they have gone bust, back to full fares. Private enterprise hates competition.

[aj444]

You get what you pay for*
The bus notwork we have here is very cheap, as Mssrs Burnham et al are about to find out.

*(c) The Conservative party.

[Chris5156]

It's interesting to compare the way this particular culture war plays out in the UK and in Sweden. In both places, you get the usual moans about speed limits being too high or too low because Reasons. But the whole concept of LTNs has been so comprehensively designed into the structure of more or less any residential area that's not just a village in the back of beyond, there isn't even a special term for it in Swedish. It just is how it is, because it's self-evidently more pleasant (and also safer) to live in an area where the only traffic driving around has business there, and it's (mostly) driving at a speed that doesn't cause lots of noise, vibration or danger.

It's notable that there are a lot of housing developments in the UK built between the 1960s and the present that are designed this way too, and no eyebrow is (or was ever) raised by it.

To take just one example - inspect any of the residential districts in a New Town like Warrington. It is entirely made up of what you might now call LTNs. All houses are on cul-de-sacs, many of which are laid out as winding pathways barely wide enough for two cars to pass and without separate footways. You can only get from one place to another by driving one of the access roads, which are the only ones that join up with anything else (and, taking advantage of the fact that this was built from scratch, have no frontage development). To drive from one street to another will, literally, take you round the houses. To walk from one to another, or to the school, or to the shops, is direct and can be done on any number of pleasant pathways and cut-throughts. By design all through traffic is excluded. This was laid out in the 1970s, to designs that were already considered standard and uncontroversial.

Back in the 30s this was the hierarchy of traffic. In the 40s they were precincts. In the 60s they were called environmental areas. All were considered applicable to new development, but also the conversion of existing towns. It's not new!

[Bryn666]

It's not even new as a retrofit to existing areas. Blackburn built several LTNs in the 1970s:

Presumably Road Rish wants these ripping out because "local consent" hasn't been granted by anyone in the last 40 years because it's already built:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/jYkFKSUUviDx2Mvx8
https://maps.app.goo.gl/oe7J9HyNnHRMq9SaA
https://maps.app.goo.gl/LMHVDWq6Asps2JEWA
https://maps.app.goo.gl/wkjoXA4h1pxgzBEt6
https://maps.app.goo.gl/7SokyNbVq9dwNziP8
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZPi59Wq2RVFevTjr7
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Bfn9iixkV5wJhvtJ9
https://maps.app.goo.gl/7uTSnRX6faiGyfd78
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6DEeZ2PDuSKhqAc38
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Mc6ErMX5qMymF3kQ7
https://maps.app.goo.gl/V2zwHyUnTp8pUegY7

And I could list more...

[Owain]

It's not even new as a retrofit to existing areas. Blackburn built several LTNs in the 1970s:

Presumably Road Rish wants these ripping out because "local consent" hasn't been granted by anyone in the last 40 years because it's already built:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/jYkFKSUUviDx2Mvx8
https://maps.app.goo.gl/oe7J9HyNnHRMq9SaA
https://maps.app.goo.gl/LMHVDWq6Asps2JEWA
https://maps.app.goo.gl/wkjoXA4h1pxgzBEt6
https://maps.app.goo.gl/7SokyNbVq9dwNziP8
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZPi59Wq2RVFevTjr7
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Bfn9iixkV5wJhvtJ9
https://maps.app.goo.gl/7uTSnRX6faiGyfd78
https://maps.app.goo.gl/6DEeZ2PDuSKhqAc38
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Mc6ErMX5qMymF3kQ7
https://maps.app.goo.gl/V2zwHyUnTp8pUegY7

And I could list more...

Want to see some in Gloucester?

Granville St: https://maps.app.goo.gl/dFYMnf81Z6z4baX59
Alma Pl:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/BMHucrr9YxJ544f9A
Theresa St:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/oSWQ4Xzfo6n8TQfJA
Philip St:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/cPC4tjf6FzYQx7cc8

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

[Bryn666]

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.