A hilarious result given Sunak ordered the report as a way to try and sink the project.
All the common critiques given to low-traffic neighbourhoods seem to have been pretty thoroughly debunked.
Surveys of 1,800-plus residents in four sample schemes…found an average of 45% support and 21% opposition.
In a sign that the controversy about the schemes might be largely generated by politicians and the media, 58% of people did not even know they lived in an LTN.
While the Met police and one ambulance service reported initial problems, overall “LTNs do not adversely affect response times for emergency vehicles”, the report said.
Critics of LTNs argue that they benefit people living inside them largely by pushing traffic on to nearby roads. However, the DfT said this did not seem to be the case.
He will sink it anyway. Not like Tories care about evidence-based policy anyway.
The article also mentions that there’s a possibility that the report will be suppressed. This article is written based essentially on a leak of the report before it is officially published.
Suppressed or altered before publication. Although now that it’s been leaked that might be less likely. I wonder if that was a deliberate tactic.
@LibertyLizard @Zagorath Probably, and the public servants who leaked it are owed a debt of gratitude.
58% of people did not even know they lived in an LTN.
This part is the funniest. Just goes to show you can just get on with the work of improving things and most people won’t notice or care, until the work accumulates into a more livable city.
This is the only way to improve infrastructure in the UK in general. NIMBYism here is ridiculous. Just do what’s needed and ignore people.
Sunak is a cunt.
Really fucking hope they keep him till the election.
They will probably give him the boot just before and 50:50 chance of Boris coming back to rebrand the Tories post Sunak. I can seem him now cycling with his hair all over the place talking about how he’s going to transform the country and how Sunak was shit but now the party is different. He’s a cunt too.
Fuck sake I hate FPTP. I’m going to stop now, I only popped in to call Sunak a cunt and I’m ranting already.
Fuck sake I hate FPTP
Hear, hear.
Hilariously, the far right Reform party has as one of their policies a move from FPTP to a proportional system.
I outright refuse to vote for a party that doesn’t try to remove FPTP I feel its evidence they care more about the party than the country.
Honestly I probably will vote reform.
I wish there was an economically left party, that tries to remove FPTP, reduce immigration and probably a couple of other right points. But it’s all or nothing.
“58% of people didn’t even know they live in an LTN.” I am dead.
But actually that tracks. I live in a post-war housing estate which is effectively an LTN, and most of the residents had no idea until they were losing their minds about the LTN the council were installing round the corner.
Duh
Sincerely, the NetherlandsIt’s a particularly good response when you consider that the terms of reference for this study were specifically set by someone looking to find an excuse to stop doing it.
I expect him to ignore this entirely or only apply it for his rich pals
Hey for those of us who are not vested in UK politics, where does Sunak stand on this? Does he have an opinion or is he vaguely wandering around the middle hoping that no one realizes he doesn’t really care?
He is terrified of upsetting the car lobby. As Chancellor of the Exchequer he kept the fuel duty freeze which has so far robbed the Exchequer of £100 billion pounds since it was introduced in 2011.
And he lives in a low traffic neighbourhood himself, it’s not like people are driving up and down Downing Street all day, since it’s gated at both ends.
Now I just have this image of some chav ripping down Downing Street in shit box Saxo at 2 am.
Hey maybe a weird question, but since you mentioned it…Chancellor of the Exchequer. Is that just the UK’s fancy name for what other countries call “Treasurer”? Or is it a significantly different role?
Yes. Minister in charge of the money and the country’s budget.
I’m not sure Downing Street really counts as an LTN in a meaningful sense though, because people aren’t just walking and riding up and down the street either.
The article mentions that he commissioned this report with the hope that he could use it to sink the idea of LTNs and stop their rollout and/or remove them where they’ve been installed.
Remember that unlike countries like America and Australia, the UK is a unitary state, and Westminster has a significant amount of power to tell local councils what they can and can’t do.
Everyone likes low traffic neighborhoods, but the fact is they’re mostly going to be in rich areas. By definition property values will be lower in high traffic areas and getting enough political power to turn your area into a low traffic area will probably require money and influence. Around me all the wealthy streets have speed bumps installed. I couldn’t picture a poor street getting the same from the city.
I live in one of the most deprived London boroughs. The council is installing LTNs, school streets, and a borough-wide 20mph limit. Many of the existing housing estates are already LTNs, but because that’s how the estate was built, people don’t recognise it as an LTN, it’s just the estate.
People often say this but there isn’t the slightest bit of evidence to back it up beyond statements like your ‘I couldn’t picture a poor street’ etc., which is no kind of evidence at all. I can picture ‘poor streets’ getting the same, so where does that leave us?
What’s more, there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary. Most council estates were built on what we would now call LTN principles: you can drive into them but not through them, the roads, junctions and crossings are narrow, to discourage speeding and make it quicker and easier for pedestrians to cross, and the speed limits are set low, etc. It’s possible that many of the new LTNs are being installed in wealthier neighbourhoods simply because the poorer neighbourhoods already are effectively LTNs. And, in any case, why should being wealthy mean you shouldn’t get to breathe clean air?
Having said that, some of the most extensive new LTNs have been built in Newham and Tower Hamlets (where the mayor is trying to take them out despite their popularity), which are two of the poorest boroughs in London. As the article points out, most LTNs have been installed by Labour councils, which tend to be in the poorer areas. It strikes me as unlikely that the poorest councils have all decided to install LTNs exclusively in the richer enclaves.
More broadly, LEZ and ULEZ were initially rolled out in the inner city: where poorer people tend to live. So, your argument just doesn’t hold up at all.
It’s vice versa. There are plenty of new car free developments in poorer parts of London like Barking, but you’ll never see them in rich parts like Chelsea.
Yeah i grew up next to a very deprived council estate in the 90s, they already had speed bumps in place then. Your take is nonsense.
