Forum Topic

New YouGov poll shows even greater majority support for LTNs

YouGov poll shows 57% support for LTNs and 16% opposition.  "The nationwide polling, carried out earlier this month, found 26% of people said they strongly supported LTNs, and 31% would “tend” to. In contrast, 8% strongly opposed them, and the same number tended to. That left more than a quarter of people who either didn’t know, or were neutral." "It’s an obvious point, but has to be said: gridlocked residential streets aren’t caused by a handful of cycle lanes, or social distancing-friendly expanded pavements, or a few streets filtered with bollards. They’re caused by too many cars, vans and trucks – and in the case of the cars, often carrying a single able-bodied adult a laughably short distance." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2020/oct/22/despite-a-loud-opposing-minority-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-are-increasingly-popular

Paul Campbell ● 2200d53 Comments

Good to see the support coming through via multiple surveys. Thanks for sharing Paul!

Matthew Swain ● 2200d

Just for the record, here are the three polls on LTN'sTfL survey, 17/9/20, London: 51% in favour, 16% opposed, 33% don't knowRedfield and Wilton, 19/10/20, London51% in favour, 19% opposed, 30% don't knowYouGov, 22/10/20, UK57% in favour, 16% opposed, 27% don't knowPretty consistent results but, Paul, you're being a little premature to suggest a trend!

Tom Pike ● 2200d

I find it hard to believe how anyone could disagree with the concept of a Low Traffic Neighbourhood being a good thing.The problem is that the reality of many these schemes is that they don't do what they say on the tin and are merely displacing traffic. If they were popular in the areas they were being implemented then obviously they should be proceeded with but there is strong evidence that across London there is overwhelming opposition to most of them from residents.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 2199d

Depends on the questions. 'Do you want cleaner air and less traffic in your neighbourhood?' or 'Do you want to be surrounded by ugly barriers and forced to drive twice as far?' or 'Do you want extra traffic from posh leafy areas sent past your house?'

Peter Evans ● 2199d

"there is strong evidence that across London there is overwhelming opposition to most of them from residents."I don't know about that. I think the numbers signing petitions and protesting triangulate well with the results of these polls. They point to a very vocal strongly opposed small minority.

Paul Campbell ● 2199d

No, there is strong evidence that opponents are extremely vociferous. But how likely do you think it is that those who oppose LTN's would say that they support them when polled, meaning on a purely conceptual basis, not wishing to make the point that they strongly oppose them in practice?These three consistent polls provide evidence that opponents of LTN's, while they might be vociferous, are a small minority, both in London and the UK.

Tom Pike ● 2199d

Bear in mind (which most people can't) that the 'ugly barriers' are temporary and will be replaced with properly constructed and landscaped hard infrastructure if the changes are made permanent after consultation.

Ken Munn ● 2199d

Peter, polling companies try hard not to ask loaded questions. Here is what Redfield and Wilton asked:"Low Traffic Neighbourhoods block motorised traffic from entering through roads to allow for more pedestrians and cyclists  To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose the introduction of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in London?"That seems a fair description of an LTN.

Tom Pike ● 2199d

If they weren't popular then there would be a clamour for removal of barriers that have been put in to stop rat-running traffic on many Chiswick streets.  After all, all they have done is 'displace traffic'.For example: Beverley Rd, Thornton Ave, Chiswick Road, Vaughan Ave, Riverview Gdns.  More recently, lots of controversy about Wellesley Rd and Stile Hall Gardens but ask residents now if they want to go back to previous situation and see what response you get.The pattern gets repeated time after time... lots of noise and outrage from opposition, the scheme goes in, people get used to it and don't want to give up the improvements to the street.

Michael Robinson ● 2199d

Can we see the questionnaire? I wouldn't trust any poll until I've seen the questions they asked and whether the people they asked were actually affected by LTNs.  It's meaningless without knowing what questions were asked. 

Tania Bapuji ● 2199d

Mr CampbellOver the last 25 years there have been many local battles with Hounslow Council over very bad decisions over , Parks , Roads , allotments and other smaller issues.Local people with different expertise came together to form a group to challenge the What LBOH intended to implement.Ok, some you win some you loose, but before any alternative view was presented to LBOH a consultation was always held with the residents that would be effected.To me it seems that you and the people who signed the letter to the government are only seeking something for themselves without asking any other person in the area of there point of view.Where have all these very vocal so called local people been hiding when there have been other issues they could have got involved with to make the  area a much better place to live in.All I observe is a group of people trying to force there idea of a great place to live, which I must say is very anti community.So people who cycle want safer roads to get from A to B, I haven’t got a problem with that, but now the twisted government has up the anti with the stupid idea of offering money to councils to create safer streets, which is something you never do as most councils have no idea of How to implement these safe streets so they turn to cycling campaign to give them some ideas.So without any consultation the cycling campaign sees this as fantastic way. of creating their vision of a safer neighbourhood, which to me is rather wired.So it’s lock all the local residents down so they are unable to move and we The Cyclist can have a free run to anywhere in the city, which will also have an impact on local business as the residents who are unable to get to the shopping centres.The one thing I notice the most vocal of the posters seem blinkered in the way they think or do and at best have just annoyed the general public with their loud mouth approach to pushing the safer roads down your throat.I didn’t think that much about cyclist while travelling around the countryside, but all you and the other posters pushing this campaign, have done is alter my position on people who cycle.

Bernard Allen ● 2199d

It is a fair description on the intention of an LTN but often it would seem not the reality.The scale of the opposition in some boroughs such as Ealing and Wandsworth seems hard to dismiss as a vociferous minority. Wandsworth quickly abandoned theirs which is hardly something they would do if it had silent majority support.I know it is not an LTN but the Lib Dems polling locally seems to show very high levels of opposition to the Fishers Lane closure.The people I speak to in the Grove Park area may not be representative but at the moment about 90% could be fairly described as virulently opposed with few of the remainder enthusiastic about the proposed changes.I'm sure you will discount this as anecdotal. If you genuinely do believe that these schemes are very popular, are you prepared to accept that this should be verified in the review process and that any scheme that did not have clear support from the community it is supposed to serve should be scrapped?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 2199d

Where is Riverview Gdns was closed in the sixties for a very good reason. Why are you listing it now?

Bernard Allen ● 2199d

This question still contains a false premise.  It might be a 'fair description' of the theoretical intentions of an LTN but not necessarily the reality.  A few, like TGT and Devonshire Road, meet the intention but fall short in practice. Many others, particularly in Ealing, appear to be general traffic reduction schemes based on a presumption that they will, in themselves, 'allow for more pedestrians and cyclists' without providing any specific measures to ensure it. I'm sure most of the local objections to LTNs are not against the principle but to the poor and thoughtless practice.

Peter Evans ● 2199d

Politicians should not respond to just those that shout loudest. It's quite possible Wandsworth Council unfortunately did just that, as the polling showing broad support for the LTN's came out later. The Southfield LibDem questionnaire was hardly an attempt to get an unbiased opinion, but rather a classic play to create an issue. It's certainly backfired and I know members have left the party over the councillors' stance on this.I wouldn't rely on the people I know and meet to be representative either, and that's why these polls are useful to get a more informed view. I also completely agree that if LTN's can't deliver lower traffic to a neighbourhood, and we'll be getting the data to provide an objective answer to that question, they should be scrapped. There is absolutely no point in having schemes in place that don't deliver.

Tom Pike ● 2199d

So do you really think prefacing the question differently, as:"Low Traffic Neighbourhoods block motorised though traffic but allow pedestrians and cyclists to travel though them.  To what extent, if at all, do you support or oppose the introduction of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in London?"would have got a significantly different response?And do you really think any opponent of LTN's would have answered that they support the introduction on LTN's in answer to the actual question? Obviously they would know what an LTN represented in the first place or they wouldn't be opposing it! That less than 20% of Londoners oppose LTN's, and less than 10% strongly oppose LTN's, seems a robust conclusion to draw from this polling.

Tom Pike ● 2199d

"Politicians should not respond to just those that shout loudest"And yet Hounslow Labour did precisely that with these road schemes.Waffle much?

David Lesniak ● 2199d

I suspect those who say they approve are supporting the idea of LTNs, while those who don't like them are rejecting the reality. The quoted question should say 'LTNs are *intended* to...' The next should ask if you have an LTN in your area, and then ask if you like it. With so many polls, who would object to the idea of something put forward as a potential improvement. It's the reality that people object to. So we have apparent support and vociferous objections at the same time, and both can be valid.

Peter Evans ● 2199d

I note there was some evasion of my question to you. I asked if there wasn't clear support for a measure in the community it served would you accept it should be scrapped. You said that they should go if they can't deliver lower traffic to a neighbourhood based on objective data.Unfortunately I don't think your approach is possible. Data is objective but what data is chosen to make a decision can be subjective and there is clearly a strong suspicion in the Grove Park that evidence will be carefully selected to present the scheme as a success as the council will have a huge vested interest in its maintenance due to the PCN revenue being generated.It can be assumed that making an area more difficult to drive through will mean that fewer vehicles will drive through but this cannot be taken as the benchmark for success. There may be fewer journeys but there may also be more roads which have issues with traffic because of displacement.The impact of these schemes will be too complex to measure simply by a few carefully selected piece of data. These will not take account of other factors such as the inconvenience for residents, emergency service response times, administrative hassle relating to vehicle registration etc.The only valid measure of whether the scheme has been a success is if the supposed beneficiaries believe it to be so. Are you saying that if you have a statistic that you believe shows the restrictions are working, this should override the clear majority opinion of residents in the area the restrictions apply?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 2199d

The vast majority of London boroughs put in LTN's under the government guidance. There's been nearly 200 LTN's across London so we know that most of those polled will have one in their area. And the question was not about the concept of LTN's, it was specifically about their introduction. If support was weaker but broader than opposition, as I think you're suggesting, you'd expect to see a lower proportion strongly supporting the introduction of LTN's than strongly opposed them. In fact 19% strongly supported LTN's, while 10% strongly opposed them.

Tom Pike ● 2199d

Tom Pike:"Politicians should not respond to just those that shout loudest." 🤣Oh the irony and blatant hypocrisy !!!

Loraine Pemberton ● 2199d

"There may be fewer journeys but there may also be more roads which have issues with traffic because of displacement."However it is displacement *from* other roads which is causing the issues.  The ANPR survey for Grove Park is quite clear about the volumes of traffic that left the northbound A316 at Hartington or Staveley and entered the westbound A4 at Sutton Court Rd or Harvard Hill.So traffic is being displaced from major roads to residential streets just because Google says so.What is the issue with keeping this traffic on roads that were designed for it?  In 2000 the A316 had almost double the traffic it had in 2019.  Swathes of Chiswick houses were demolished to build the A4 in the 1950s and 1960s.

Michael Robinson ● 2199d

No evasion was intended. I was trying to give a clear metric that would indicate if a scheme was a failure, and I agree that should be based not just on traffic through one neighbourhood if other neighbourhoods suffer from displaced traffic.Of course there is more to consider to deem a scheme a success than just traffic counts - that's just a necessary but not sufficient condition.

Tom Pike ● 2199d

What is the issue with keeping this traffic on roads that were designed for it?  In 2000 the A316 had almost double the traffic it had in 2019.  Swathes of Chiswick houses were demolished to build the A4 in the 1950s and 1960s.It won’t belong before it’s back to 2019 Level, Know doubt with the draconian measures Installed in Grove Park it may even increase it.Giving me extra pollution that we put up with last year. Plus it’s road used by many school children crossing to travel to school.Yes our children in this area do walk to school, but if the A316 gets any busier we might have to resort to using our cars again to cross the main road.

Bernard Allen ● 2199d

You are missing the point. Why is there is an issue with traffic that is already on the A316 staying on the A316?  People complaining about keeping traffic on the A316 don't appear to be aware that it was much more in the past anyway.

Michael Robinson ● 2199d

In addition Bernard, given your memory for these things, when was access from the A316 to Paxton Rd closed off?The principle behind that is exactly the same as the other S Chiswick measures.  Drivers were taking a short cut along Paxton Rd between the A316 and A4 so access from the A316 was closed off.  That means that Paxton Rd residents need to take a detour if they are coming from the northbound A316.Are there any calls from Paxton Rd residents to open up the street again so some of them might save a few minutes for some car journeys?

Michael Robinson ● 2199d

It seems there is a tremendous resistance to change. Surely it has to be better to try something first than being afraid of changing anything in case it is more inconvenient.  It is much better with slower car van and lorry traffic on roads for the other road users who have been bullied into less space.  Comments can be made to the Councils on the schemes whilst experiencing them rather than just guessing what will happen.  That includes far more people than just the few who otherwise would engage.  Once upon a time there were fewer online deliveries.  I wonder if there is a better way of these being arranged with all the IT now available?  Remember when it was just a few companies like John Lewis who had particular delivery days for particular postcodes?  Or maybe more of the small last mile deliveries as larger vehicles are so often driven over the kerbs causing pavement damage and consequently more hazardous falls, admissions to hospital and both temporary and lasting disability.  Do we really all need everything last minute?  Surely a lot of that is unnecessary and for that we should be paying a seriously discouraging premium?  We should be demanding cleaner transport from all the major online companies.  They should be leading the way for the smaller ones. The trials draw attention to the large and hidden numbers of trips made to those who are less mobile who need regular visiting.  Once upon a time there was hospital transport and other agencies who would have carried out a lot of these journeys.  Transport like that right now is of course not a good idea but that doesn't mean that it never will be in future.       

Philippa Bond ● 2199d

All these road closures are daft, just reopen them all and let whoever wants to use them and that's for cyclists and motorist alike.The money wasted on these schemes should have been spent on repairing potholes and pavements.For the record I use a car, cycle and use public transport.

Brian Green ● 2199d

From what I've read Wandsworth appeared to have made some hurried and poor decisions or perhaps that was just that they were very badly carried out so that cars travelled quite a way down a narrow road they would usually travel down before they found that they had to reverse.I don't think anybody realised how little knowledge many of the population seem to have or retain of their highway code knowledge.  Or how many people drive on automatic pilot not noticing any changes.

Philippa Bond ● 2199d

"All these road closures are daft, just reopen them all and let whoever wants to use them and that's for cyclists and motorist alike."The majority would agree with you.

Steve Taylor ● 2199d

For once you have picked on a road that there was a problem.Most of the measures you and you gang are considering in Grove Park are not necessary.Like Rivetview Grove Closure, there was a real problem with the amount of accidents at the cross roads, and fast traffic thinking it was a shorter route to Thames road.Its only since Sat navs have been around that so called rat runs have been created.But the heavy handed road closures and diversions are installed on the back of the victimisation of a Labour Council on the residents who dare to vote for the Tory party.The real bigger picture is to continue pushing the boundary commission to Take Chiswick out of Hounslow, along with any area with a London post code.That wont solve any problems of Hounslow making in today's climate. But having a Council egged on by a Cycling Campaign isn't correct, as you want your cake and eat it.Lets see in time to come how much pollution over spills from the South Circular down your roads.As there are so many Doctors involved in the closing of roads, is any of them going to carry out a surrey if there is an increase in Asthma or lung disease in the coming years, I bet not, their to busy ridging their bikes around in circles.

Bernard Allen ● 2199d

As there are so many Doctors involved in the closing of roads, is any of them going to carry out a surrey if there is an increase in Asthma or lung disease in the coming years, I bet not, their to busy ridging their bikes around in circles.  Come on Bernard, the level of asthma is not from closing roads or riding bikes its from to much traffic.  In order to change that you have to change behaviour, that's done through change in infrastructure, regulation and behavioural nudges. I can't see any other way can you?

Matthew Swain ● 2199d

Only the majority who prefer the past to the future.

Ken Munn ● 2199d

Yes I agree about to much traffic.But soon the South Circular, A4 /M4 and A316 are going to be much busier, the traffic isn't going to disappear overnight.So the Chiswick residents who's homes that are alongside or near by these roads will be affected and it's children that are the most vulnerable.

Bernard Allen ● 2199d

Not so much a resistance to change, but a resistance to change without any consultation with the people, be they residents or businesses,to whom these changes will affect. No one likes being bullied, much better to get agreement rather than bulldoze through changes.The three Polls being quoted need scrutiny in terms of the language used in the questions asked. Would anyone say that the majority of Chiswicks residents and businesses are 'for' ALL the implemented and proposed restrictions ? From just this Forum comments would strongly suggest not.

Loraine Pemberton ● 2199d

"Only the majority who prefer the past to the future."Yes, I would agree with that when the future looks so bleak!

Steve Taylor ● 2199d

Do you really and truly think you will be able to move forward if you do all the consultation before?

Philippa Bond ● 2199d

Michael: Stop pushing this pile of nonsense about how the A316 will cope with increased traffic because "it did so in the past"No it did not.  Why do you think Sat Navs suggested using rat runs if it was not to avoid traffic jams just before the Hogarth Roundabout?  Another piece of evidence, the local MP complained in Parliament about the A316 being unable to cope with the traffic at the roundabout as far back as 1975.Indeed the A316 elevated section was built in 1971 in part to alleviate the problems at the Hogarth roundabout (and as part of a mad London Ringways plan).  We know that whenever the elevated section is closed traffic backs up a long way often as far back as Hammersmith to the east and past Chiswick Bridge to the west.Traffic congestion at the Hogarth Roundabout is not a new problem, it goes back more than 50 years yet LBOH keeps pushing plans that are guaranteed (indeed it is the point of the plans) to ensure more traffic has to use the A316 up to Hogarth Roundabout.

Justin Stephenson ● 2199d

Yes, I do because we live in a Democracy and not an extreme left or right wing country. In the main it's much better to persuade rather than force communities, be they local or national.How would you react if LBH suddenly announced

Loraine Pemberton ● 2199d

Announced... that with immediate effect with no Consultation that all rubbish was to be put into one container and recycling would no longer happen ?

Loraine Pemberton ● 2199d

Peter,I got the impression from the previous post that you are including TGT and Devonshire road as exemplars of the LTN category. Are you?My take on LTNs is that they are ‘larger’ than just 1 or 2 roads. The SOTG/Thames Road LTN (or the one in Sands End in LBHF) typifies what comes to mind when people mention LTNs.

Andrew Jones ● 2199d

Justin,I can point you to Department for Transport traffic data gathered every year since 2000 showing a decline in traffic from 2000 to 2019.  A similar decline has occurred on other roads in the area.Where is your evidence?  You only have some anecdotes.SatNavs will select a route even if it is marginally faster than an alternative route by a minute. There doesn't need to be any great problems or congestion with the alternative route, it just needs to be slower by a minute.Cutting through Grove Park is about a 1km shorter than taking the A316 and A4 so it really isn't a surprise that journeys through Grove Park can take less time. Really what your seem to be saying is that it doesn't matter if the A316 and A4 are designated high capacity roads, drivers should just do what google tells them and drivers saving  a minute of time is more important than anything else.

Michael Robinson ● 2199d

“We know that the majority of people support reallocation of road space for cycling and walking in their local area.” Grant Shapps 16th October. The three surveys mentioned seem to be in line with the views of the Secretary of State at the Department for Transport then.

Edward Seaton ● 2199d

But then again. Who would believe this Secretary of State?

Steve Taylor ● 2198d

Indeed, it's not the concept that's bad, it's the implementation. The Chiswick schemes are poorly designed, poorly implemented and simply don't reduce traffic. They do bring in a lot of fine revenue though, so I suspect the survey was asking the wrong question.

Mark Dixon ● 2195d

I'll leave you to decide what to make of it. Sat 24th

Julian Pavey ● 2195d

"I'll leave you to decide what to make of it."Yes the good people of the UK aren't going to put up with this nonsense of cyclists taking over the all roads for much longer. 

Steve Taylor ● 2195d

David, this really is how people living in one of the most civilised and privileged cities on this planet actively choose to receive information. It is an indictment of the much lauded UK education system.

Paul Campbell ● 2195d

I think Paul when we can see the utter chaos your crazy schemes have imposed on Chiswick I would stop with the smarmy little comments and get back in your hole for a while.

Paul Green ● 2195d

I rest my case.

Paul Campbell ● 2195d

"It is an indictment of the much lauded UK education system"Oh I dunno, Paul, the indictment is more likely the steadfast refusal for balanced research and engagement. That would mean investigating all manner of TfL data without a single lens and, get this, investigating information that isn't printed on TfL letterhead. It would mean talking with local businesses and neighbors and listening to their concerns. You opt to ignore and denigrate.But do please continue to divide the community with your myopic vision. That anger that's bubbling up? Thank yourself for that.

David Lesniak ● 2195d

Has anyone seen it, apart from Peter Walker?

Russell Pearson ● 2195d

"But do please continue to divide the community with your myopic vision. That anger that's bubbling up? Thank yourself for that."Don't worry David. Paul & and his room mates have succeeded in shaming the cycling community and the natives are now not only restless, they are sick and tired of this nonsense and all the false claims.. Sanity will prevail and these ill-thought out schemes will be scrapped / reversed / cancelled. It's a great pity that so much money has been wasted on these white elephants though and that so many businesses have already failed because of them.

Steve Taylor ● 2194d