Government approach to local authority road measures

[jgharston]

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

If only people had a sense of perspective as well.

[Helvellyn]

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

If only people had a sense of perspective as well.

A sense of perspective is one of those things that's apparently not fit for the 21st century.

[aj444]

Islington wasn't in the West Midlands last time I looked.

It has far superior public transport to anything in "the North", plus I suspect local amenities will be closer too, so travel patterns will be vastly different.

[Chris Bertram]

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

If only people had a sense of perspective as well.

Well yes, urban pollution levels are at historically low levels, and will continue to improve as electric vehicles become more popular. Plus we're not ankle-deep in manure these days. All the same, efforts to improve emissions levels are always worth pursuing.

[Helvellyn]

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

If only people had a sense of perspective as well.

Well yes, urban pollution levels are at historically low levels, and will continue to improve as electric vehicles become more popular. Plus we're not ankle-deep in manure these days. All the same, efforts to improve emissions levels are always worth pursuing.

Up to a point. When does the cure become worse than the disease? When is something bad enough to be sensibly considered a problem? It certainly is a problem in some locations, I'm not going to pretend otherwise, but we do need to be beware of "pollution bad, thus anything that reduces it good" wherever and whenever.

[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.

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?

The residents of Vicarage Road certainly think so. No sooner had the road blocks gone in within the LTN, peak time congestion on that road increased markedly, and the pollution levels went up with it. How much? Well, since the city council haven't released any figures, and probably don't have any, it's hard to say exactly how much. Vicarage Road was always busy - it's a B road in the section so affected - but there's busy and there's overcapacity, and the difference it makes is obvious.

Kings Heath is a traffic hotspot; not only is A435, the High Street, a primary route and one of the main arterial roads between the city and the M42/M40, but there's traffic crossing it too, using A4040 and a couple of B roads as links, plus a few Class III roads, one of which I live on. A by-pass was proposed a while ago but was nixed because of the demolition it would have required so we're stuck with what we have. Blocking roads and concentrating traffic on already very busy streets results in increased congestion. It's all very well to say that this is main roads doing their job, but they are demonstrably not doing it very well if traffic is at a standstill at peak times. Road blocks remove redundancy from the road network, and that redundancy is needed at critical times.

[FosseWay]

It's all very well to say that this is main roads doing their job, but they are demonstrably not doing it very well if traffic is at a standstill at peak times. Road blocks remove redundancy from the road network, and that redundancy is needed at critical times.

You've put the finger on the problem yourself - it's with the main roads. Inadequate provision on main roads (in which I'd include inadequate PT and other ways of making it easier not to drive) is not an excuse in itself to impose a load of extraneous traffic on roads whose layout, width and frontage use strongly suggests they are best classified as purely residential.

Redundancy is needed, but we need to be careful how we define it. Personally I see the provision of redundancy as the ease with which you can get traffic to flow a different way if there's an exceptional need for it to do so. The most obvious examples are if there is an accident or other unplanned blockage, or if a road needs to be closed or narrowed for works. Using side roads not intended for or suitable for through traffic as a normal response to the normal traffic volume isn't redundancy.

It's a bit like overtime at work. Overtime is for special circumstances. When employers start presuming that the workforce will routinely work longer than its contracted hours just to carry out normal business, then there's a problem.

[Helvellyn]

If the main roads are getting overloaded 99 times out of 100 that's a symptom of bigger problems.

[AndyB]

The problem in question being that there is insufficient capacity on the arterial road system for the amount of traffic which would like to use it, which brings us back round to the problem that the scope to widen existing roads and build new ones is limited.

That of course needs a holistic solution which has to use carrot and stick for those who don’t need to be in that car in that traffic jam on that day but actively make the choice to do so anyway - the difference between those for whom no public transport solution is practical, and those who don’t care if there is such a solution or the effect on others of their own choices.

[Helvellyn]

The problem in question being that there is insufficient capacity on the arterial road system for the amount of traffic which would like to use it, which brings us back round to the problem that the scope to widen existing roads and build new ones is limited.

That of course needs a holistic solution which has to use carrot and stick for those who don’t need to be in that car in that traffic jam on that day but actively make the choice to do so anyway - the difference between those for whom no public transport solution is practical, and those who don’t care if there is such a solution or the effect on others of their own choices.

Who chooses to sit in a traffic jam that they don't have to?

The problem with the "don't care ... effect on others" line is that that's also the impression I frequently get from those who want various measures and building.

Why has traffic increased so much? There's the problem, all the changes that have resulted in that. The only good long-term solution is to reverse them, they've been a mistake.

[rhyds]

The problem in question being that there is insufficient capacity on the arterial road system for the amount of traffic which would like to use it, which brings us back round to the problem that the scope to widen existing roads and build new ones is limited.

That of course needs a holistic solution which has to use carrot and stick for those who don’t need to be in that car in that traffic jam on that day but actively make the choice to do so anyway - the difference between those for whom no public transport solution is practical, and those who don’t care if there is such a solution or the effect on others of their own choices.

(my bold)

The question here is how do you define "can't" vs "won't"? Back when I had a long daily commute (25 miles each way in rural Mid Wales) I could, if I had to, use public transport. Problem was it meant my commuting time doubled (90mins each way vs 45mins) and also meant having to signifcantly change my start/finish times in the office. I could do that (and did if my car needed work) but I really didn't want to long term, as frankly I'm not going to waste my leisure/personal time on a crowded bus

[AndyB]

The line is in the region of “why does AndyB do a 20 minute drive to his office when taking two buses would take an hour.”

Who chooses to sit in a traffic jam that they don't have to?

Everyone you meet who says “I pay to own and run a car, so I’m not using the bus”, even though you know it goes along the same route and may even get them closer to their office than the car park they use every day.

[FosseWay]

The problem in question being that there is insufficient capacity on the arterial road system for the amount of traffic which would like to use it, which brings us back round to the problem that the scope to widen existing roads and build new ones is limited.

That of course needs a holistic solution which has to use carrot and stick for those who don’t need to be in that car in that traffic jam on that day but actively make the choice to do so anyway - the difference between those for whom no public transport solution is practical, and those who don’t care if there is such a solution or the effect on others of their own choices.

(my bold)

The question here is how do you define "can't" vs "won't"? Back when I had a long daily commute (25 miles each way in rural Mid Wales) I could, if I had to, use public transport. Problem was it meant my commuting time doubled (90mins each way vs 45mins) and also meant having to signifcantly change my start/finish times in the office. I could do that (and did if my car needed work) but I really didn't want to long term, as frankly I'm not going to waste my leisure/personal time on a crowded bus

I think we risk getting bogged down with the can't/won't dichotomy. It doesn't really matter if a small number of people insist on using their car for a particular journey if most people who can use an alternative are offered such an alternative and choose to use it. If we start pointing fingers at people who in our view "could" use the bus etc. but choose not to, it also exacerbates the whole conflict that LTNs have erupted into.

Where I live, there are frequent buses from the hinterland of the city into the centre and to various other hubs and major employers. There is also a comprehensive network of local buses, trams and boats within the city so if the bus from the suburbs doesn't go exactly where you want, you can change. If you do this journey all the time you can get a season ticket which makes the daily cost considerably less than the petrol, never mind all the other costs of driving, and of course you can use it at other times as well. Regarding the latter, the main aspect discouraging drivers is parking, which is expensive but - pay attention to this - available if you want it. No-one's saying to anyone that they shouldn't drive, but the system is set up such that if you choose to drive, you will probably pay considerably more than if you don't.

It will often be quicker to drive than to get the bus, especially if you have to change buses, but you weigh that up against the cost. This gives commuters flexibility: if they're in a hurry or they need to pick something bulky up after work or whatever, the convenience of the car then becomes the more important criterion, so they pay the parking costs on that journey.

[Debaser]

Why has traffic increased so much? There's the problem, all the changes that have resulted in that. The only good long-term solution is to reverse them, they've been a mistake.

The problem is this has been the quiet work of decades.

If I say, 'look at Thatcher's governments and the changes to planning rules that let out of town shopping developments loose upon the nation' as one significant contributory factor, then someone will pipe up that that was over 30-odd years ago and every subsequent government had plenty of time to change things. The trouble is it's taken those 30 or nearer 40 years for the effects of planning changes (along with demographics and numerous other factors) to work themselves out and give us the results we see today*. Yes, there were points along the way that suggested what would become our current traffic hell - every time a new IKEA opened it showed up the planning process and how desperate local authorities were to get one over on the neighbours and attract development, no matter what effect it had on the highway network. But we cannot accuse politicians of short-termism and then deny that the ripple effect of any actions taken more than five years ago isn't still affecting us, which I've seen suggested elsewhere.

But as we can see, firstly to solve a problem it needs to be recognised as such, and suggesting that residential roads are part of some sort of pre-planned resilience, a relief system for when main roads are at capacity is not recognising the problem of simply too much motor traffic for the space we have available for highways, particularly in urban areas. Secondly, solutions to severe societal problems (motor vehicle congestion being one) are generally not found tickling at the edges of them, the longer we leave them the more they need major and/or long-term, and yes, potentially life-changing interventions - the introduction of punitive out of town development parking charges and increased business rates to address this particular problem, for example. If some want to believe those solutions come in the form of EVs and AVs that's up to them, but without any significant reduction in volume we're just going to be better informed of by how long our journeys will be delayed, in greater comfort.



*The same can of course be said for the deregulation of buses, the privatisation of rail and what some still call 'the utilities', and yet even last week the PM was apparently giving the governments of the Eighties (or rather you-know-who) a free pass - it was all the rest that went wrong.

[AndyB]

I should say that much as out of town shopping centres are a serious problem because realistically people need to be able to access them and their bus routes, if they exist, only serve a limited portion of their hinterland so it has to be by car, I think it is a far smaller problem than peak congestion because of how shopping is spread out across the day.

Mind you, that breaks down at Christmas, because everybody’s trying to go Christmas shopping at exactly the same moment as everybody else is going home from work…

[Debaser]

I should say that much as out of town shopping centres are a serious problem because realistically people need to be able to access them and their bus routes, if they exist, only serve a limited portion of their hinterland so it has to be by car, I think it is a far smaller problem than peak congestion because of how shopping is spread out across the day.

Mind you, that breaks down at Christmas, because everybody’s trying to go Christmas shopping at exactly the same moment as everybody else is going home from work…

I agree, but it's one very obvious case where the sins of 40 years ago are still being visited upon us in a very real way, and show the timescales we need to think in in order to identify and then manage or solve the problem.

[aj444]

If I say, 'look at Thatcher's governments and the changes to planning rules that let out of town shopping developments loose upon the nation' as one significant contributory factor, then someone will pipe up that that was over 30-odd years ago and every subsequent government had plenty of time to change things. The trouble is it's taken those 30 or nearer 40 years for the effects of planning changes (along with demographics and numerous other factors) to work themselves out and give us the results we see today*. Yes, there were points along the way that suggested what would become our current traffic hell - every time a new IKEA opened it showed up the planning process and how desperate local authorities were to get one over on the neighbours and attract development, no matter what effect it had on the highway network. But we cannot accuse politicians of short-termism and then deny that the ripple effect of any actions taken more than five years ago isn't still affecting us, which I've seen suggested elsewhere.

There's other things as well,
the collapse of large industrial employers.
parental choice for schooling.
the collapse of town centres.

Everyone is going to everywhere else, pt will never be able cope with this.

[AndyB]

The genie is definitely out of the bottle.

Even if everybody had to attend their closest primary school, the complications of organising childcare are such that one former colleague had to go so far out of the way to take his children to childcare that getting the direct bus from his house or even from childcare to work was a non-starter, even on a day when he was guaranteed not to be called to visit another office.

It’s why comments such as “Public transport for me to get to work is ridiculously inconvenient” miss the point. Yes, we know that probably the majority of peak traffic could not be accommodated by a good public transport system, but those people for whom public transport is (genuinely) ridiculously inconvenient or impossible, including tradespersons, logistics, many disabled persons and the drivers of buses, are the reason why those with straightforward travel needs easily met by public transport are a problem.

[AndyB]

Put slightly differently, no, public transport would never be able to cope with the variety of journeys made in peak traffic.

It does however have the ability to remove drivers to an extent capable of making a significant difference to congestion for everybody who can’t use it, benefitting their journeys, reducing their stress and fatigue, and having a positive effect on the economy because less time is wasted.

[aj444]

The report states that LTNs have ‘directly caused bus services across the bulk of Oxford to become substantially slower, even less reliable, and as a result have further substantially reduced bus patronage and mileage

They argue that the damage to bus services exceeds that experienced by any other mode of transport, ‘including, perversely, private car use’, and conclude that the LTN scheme has been ‘a failure in almost all respects, including in its own terms’.

https://www.highwaysmagazine.co.uk/Bus- ... lure/13548

The result of this is that the council are looking at "tinkering" as obviously it can't be admitted that these things don't work.

They look nice plantpots though.