Forum Topic

Different government approach to LTNs etc

Just read this:https://www.thetimes.com/uk/transport/article/tory-clampdown-on-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-to-be-scrapped-5hps96vrc#:~:text=Ministers%20are%20to%20reverse%20Tory,zones%20and%20low%20traffic%20neighbourhoods.If you can't get past the firewall the first few paragraphs are:Tory clampdown on low traffic neighbourhoods to be scrappedLouise Haigh, the transport secretary, says local authorities that want more 20mph zones and LTNs will have her ‘absolute support’Ministers are to reverse Tory plans to clamp down on councils that want to create further 20mph speed limit zones and low traffic neighbourhoods.Louise Haigh, the transport secretary, said local authorities would have her “absolute support” to introduce the schemes in towns and cities. They have often prompted local opposition.She pledged to scrap plans by the previous government that would have restricted councils’ ability to introduce new 20mph zones and make it harder to bring in new low traffic neighbourhoods. She also accused the Conservatives of stoking “really horrific culture wars” with their clampdown on anti-motorist measures, saying that decisions were best taken locally.“They (councils) had the government actively working against them saying ‘no, you’re not allowed to roll out 20mph zones, no you’re not allowed to roll out LTNs’,” she told the Streets Ahead podcast.“Those kinds of decisions should absolutely be made at a local level by communities and not dictated to or stoked by the centre,” she said. “This government has ended all culture wars full stop, but there’s no way you’ll be hearing that from this department now.”The article goes on to say that decisions on these things should be made in the community, so I guess if you live in an LTN and want to get it scrapped, start a petition and get all those in the community to sign (or indeed vice-versa)

Andrew Jones ● 59d16 Comments

Indeed. We do laugh a lot at the car supremacist losers.

Paul Campbell ● 55d

LOL

Sarah Potter ● 55d

Actually there are really great people involved in making Chiswick better and the noisy losers just have to look on and nurture their bitterness from the outside while we win and enjoy our victory parties.

Paul Campbell ● 55d

As I said, “Recollectionsmay vary”. This group of “active residents” is basically you and a few other cronies all of whom clearly have too much time on their hands.  And I agree, it is definitely a small ( and noisy) group. Your sense of selfentitlement and schadenfreude is very sad.

Sarah Potter ● 55d

Ha ha Bob. Of course they knew people live on the east side of the A316. Incredible what people are prepared to believe really.What actually happened was that John Todd successfully lobbied for those residents to have an exemption from the restrictions - see point 7 in my description of what happened. Just one of the many proof points that the Council listened to local Councillors and residents.

Paul Campbell ● 55d

“ and they don’t listen to residents’ views.”Of course they don’t. LBH is controlled by despotic councillors who aren’t interested in democratic process.

Steve Taylor ● 55d

Sarah, I seem to remember that our councillors took LBH officers around the Dukes Meadows and all the areas up to Hogarth roundabout as they didn't know that people lived that side of the A316.That's why those people were suddenly given the rights to go through Staveley Rd, (past the school).

Bob Guyett ● 55d

No 91% did not respond to the Council's survey. A very small % of Chiswick's population did and it was a consultation not a vote. But I wasn't talking about Fisher's anyway. I was talking about the South Chiswick LTN. While we are on Fishers: it was group of residents who lobbied Ealing and Hounslow Councils for Fishers Lane to be closed to cars by the way. They did a great job of influencing the decision makers with their positive campaign and they won despite the inevitable angry backlash from drivers like you. I know some of them very well and celebrated their victory in the Duke. It was a great night. About 20 people stood in the road in Staveley to protest and try to block the Council. They failed. A reporter then knocked on doors on Staveley Road when the barrier had been installed and found a huge majority in favour of removing 5500 rat runners per day from their road. Unsurprisingly. Everything I wrote is factually correct.Tough on the losers who don't like car restrictions. Brilliant for the residents who are enjoying much safer and quieter streets.  Whether you like it or not it is active local residents who are making these schemes happen and we have an obliging Council who understands the benefits of cycle lanes and LTNs. Like the new government and SoS for Transport. Better get used to it.

Paul Campbell ● 55d

The only possible ( polite) answer to this rubbish Paul Campbell is “Recollections may vary” .  91%  responded to the council’s own survey and said they did not want Fisher’s Lane closed.  But closed it is.  Staveley rd residents stood in their own road with placards opposing the LTN - so the council came in the middle of the night toimplement it.  The council don’t know the area , they don’t live here, they just want the £££ ( £13 million raised from the Hartington rd scam alone) and they don’t listen to residents’ views.

Sarah Potter ● 55d

I totally agree with Venessa, too many decisons being made by LBH employee's who live outside of the borough & do not know the area's they are making decisions on.

Elizabeth Whittington ● 55d

Vanessa is 100% correct!

Steve Taylor ● 58d

Here is what actually happened with the South Chiswick LTN:1. Residents informed local Councillors about their concerns over increasing through traffic and poor driver behaviour in Grove Park and SOTG.2. The Council recognised the concerns, monitored roads affected and conducted a consultation for residents to identify trouble spots and make suggestions for remedies3. Local Councillors started to get cold feet and pull away from the idea of restricting through traffic4. Council Officers used the monitoring data, consultation results and site surveys to draw up a plan for a LTN5. The Council consulted on the plans including sessions with local residents and Councillors and online surveys6. They implemented the plans under an Experimental Traffic Regulation Order and continued consultation7. The Council made several fundamental changes to the LTN following feedback and appeals from residents and Councillors, including extending exemptions to residents living outside the LTN, simplifying and aligning restrictions, entirely removing some traffic measures8. The Council continued to listen to appeals from residents to reopen Burlington Lane effectively torpedoing the whole scheme9. Residents and local Councillors decided that would be a bad idea and appealed for the Council to reconsider10. They didIs anything the Council does consulted upon as extensively as closing a few roads to vast numbers of rat runners. And yet still people who didn't get their way (and somebody has to not get their way) complain they were not consulted.

Paul Campbell ● 58d

Agree with Vanessa

John Southey ● 58d

The other problem here is - as you mentioned some wide roads have a 20 m.p.h. limit, enforced with cameras - presumably as a money spinner? But the small residential roads that really could benefit from that are not policed at all.

Vanessa Smith ● 58d

The snag with 20mph limits/zones is that they're often not logical or consistent, unlike 30/40/50, etc., presumably as local authorities are are liberty to install them as they wish. So in some places they're just near schools or on residential roads to calm traffic, while in others they're on every road, I guess 'to make the world a better place'.  I notice that Park Lane has recently gone from being the familiar wide dual carriageway with a 40mph limit to 20mph.  You can also move from borough to borough and find the same main road is 30mph for some sections and 20mph for others, with some examples of this to be found not far from Chiswick. Also, there are 20mph 'limits' and 20mph 'zones' with different signage requirements.  One of these (yes, it's quiz time!) is supposed to have road modifications such as humps or chicanes to physically reinforce the limit, while the other is supposed to have reminder signs on the lampposts but often don't.  If all this were more logical people might respect it more.  At least the Welsh experiment with blanket 20mph in built up areas was logical and did seem to reduce accidents.

Peter Evans ● 58d

Well, that approach will be O.K. IF - and it's a big IF with LBH - they take the time and trouble to actually listen what local people tell them. Experience thus far is that they let officers - who do not know the area - except from a computer screen - loose, who come up with some scheme that does not reflect the situation on the ground. Then councillors defend these schemes and imply that we're all delusional or NIMBYs. There may well be areas where these LTNs and 20 m.p.h. zones work - but unless the process to get there is transparent and considered carefully they will just invite controversy.

Vanessa Smith ● 58d