Forum Topic

Councils warned to consult or lose traffic funding

A press release from the Dept of Transport on funding for cycling and pedestrian friendly schemes includes the following phrase“The Transport Secretary has set tough new conditions on councils receiving funding, requiring them to ensure schemes are properly consulted on. This will help avoid the problems seen in a minority of the schemes developed in the first round of funding. If these conditions are not met by a council, the Transport Secretary has been clear that future funding allocations will be reduced and claw-backs could also be imposed.”The full release is athttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/175-million-more-for-cycling-and-walking-as-research-shows-public-support

Brendan McCarthy ● 2176d29 Comments

The government has released additional funding figures for local authorities outside London.  The London figure is £20M but there isn't a breakdown yet.  In his letter to local authorities Shapps said:'consultation on LTNs and other schemes should involve objective gauges such as polling, rather than “listening only to the loudest voices or giving any one group a veto”.'“Very few changes to anything will command unanimous support, and we do not ask it for these schemes. But there is clear evidence that for all the controversy they can sometimes cause, ambitious cycling and walking schemes have significant, if quieter, majority support.”

Michael Robinson ● 2176d

“ But there is clear evidence that for all the controversy they can sometimes cause, ambitious cycling and walking schemes have significant, if quieter, majority support.”There’s the rub, we don’t have such a scheme. We have a dog’s dinner of a scheme that lacks any sign of significant support. That is, outside of a few dubious Twitter accounts, and of the powerful insidious sway of the Hounslow chapter of LCC, and the Bedford Park Bicycle Club.

Russell Pearson ● 2176d

Grant Shapps repairs his bike:

Tom Pike ● 2176d

Hopefully Boris Johnson will not be with us for much longer. When he goes, so also with Andrew Gilligan. There is little support among Conservative backbenchers for these schemes - and after the events of the last 24 hours they will be in a better position to pressure the government to back off.

Brendan McCarthy ● 2176d

Russell, I could not agree more. The closures of TGT and DR have not produced any appreciable improvement in walking, nor any improvement in cycling on TGT. Chiswick is fairly well blessed with open spaces and commons that surround the High Rd. I have yet to see children skipping down the road in either TGT or DR in the manner envisaged by Cllr Lambert. I have seen lots more congestion on surrounding roads, which by Michael's own logic must be increasing pollution for residents and others there.Michael, do you ever tire. You previously told us several times that these consultations are not referendums. So what are they. And if you are really so confident of the silent majority, ignoring the 75% of residents that wanted Fishers Lane reopened, then why not put it to the vote of ACTUAL residents and business. I believe that is what the Labour MP for Ealing, who is not a member of a narrow lobby group, is suggesting.What could possibly be more reasonable than that?

Paul Green ● 2176d

“Advisors come and go”, let’s see if Gilligan is nexthttps://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/grant-shapps-dominic-cummings-missed-come-go-b69315.html

Russell Pearson ● 2176d

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Those with reservations or objections are dismissed as a vocal reactionary minority while the extremely vocal minority who are philosophically wedded to these schemes are deemed to be representative of the population as a whole. I do hope that when the official feedback closes we will be given the actual numbers of opinions expressed. I would also welcome some official elaboration about the supposed independence of the adjudication process.

Bruce Hammal ● 2176d

It appears whatever else emerges after the dust settles in Number 10 the Green agenda is going to get greater emphasis. That's critical if we are going to effectively tackle the current climate emergency in the brief time still left to prevent catastrophic climate change.As for opposition to these traffic measures, we were told just a few weeks back 50 MPs were lined up to oppose them, and the number was growing. In fact only 14 MPs ended up writing to Grant Shapps last week asking him to withdraw funding for cycle lanes. https://fairfueluk.com/MPs-to-Rt-Hon-Grant-Shapps-Final.pdfThey got their answer from the Minister for Transport a few days later.

Tom Pike ● 2176d

In what way do only a minority benefit from getting pollution in our area below legal levels or raising the activity level of the general population?

John Hall ● 2176d

Paul, people elect politicians at national, London and local level, the politicians have policies and implement them.The measures for protected cycling and rebalancing roads away from motor traffic are aligned with policies at national, London and local level.  There is quite a degree of cross party alignment given the original London cycleway and current national policy came from Conservative administrations.It appears that you never paid any attention on this up to now.  You are in good company as the Chiswick councillors never paid any attention either so it seemed to come as a surprise that a cycleway has been planned along Chiswick High Rd and there are national, London and government policies to rebalance roads away from motor traffic.A consultation is one of the methods to improve a scheme.  I know that some seem to think it is a vote, a veto or an opportunity to vent, rant and froth, but quality of response matters more than quantity.The LibDem poll was self-selecting, so again, can't be taken as a reliable indication of public opinion.If you want different policies, then vote for different politicians.  Nigel Farage came out against Low Traffic Neighbourhoods during the week so his new 'Reform UK' party seems to be the best bet for you at the moment.

Michael Robinson ● 2176d

The Kantar poll commissioned by the DfT and linked to in that press release is very interesting. It shows two thirds of people support reallocation of road space to walking and cycling in general and in their neighbourhood.And the demographic breakdown is even more interesting with significantly less support and stronger opposition among people over 65, people who do not work, homeowners and people who identify primarily as drivers for mode of transport. So that gives a strong indication of the demographics of what the government calls "the vocal minority".That is four polls now that all come to the same conclusion. And the question that has been asked so many times on here - who cares about polls? - has been answered definitively: the government does and it is defining the policy to give more space to walking and cycling.The link to the full report, meothodology and questions is here:https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-attitudes-towards-traffic-and-road-use

Paul Campbell ● 2176d

As others have suggested, many objections aren't aimed at the principle of these schemes, but at their poor design and implementation. If they're going to do these things they should do them properly or not at all.

Peter Evans ● 2176d

Tom, no objections from me about a greener government - in fact I suspect that some of my views might be way too green for some. We could start of course by having a joined-up policy on aviation - not something you are likely to find much drum-beating for at Hounslow House where support for a thriving and expanding Heathrow underlies much of the decision-making.However, back to the point......ill-conceived and implemented traffic schemes that end up dividing communities (physically as well as emotionally) do nothing to help the environment when they add pollution and damage public transport. I'm sorry to have to tell you this but the bicycle won't save the planet. You can't uninvent the internal combustion engine or deny car ownership its place as a providing a worldwide revolution in personal freedom and mobility. What you can do is make car use much much greener and manage the process through a combination of incentives and discouragements. Just gridlocking streets to force people to abandon their cars is not an intelligent option.Also let's not forget why we are having this discussion in the first place - we are supposed to be using the powers granted to local authorities in order to combat the coronavirus, and at very least we can say that the jury is out on the effectiveness or otherwise of that policy in this part of the world. Saving the planet is yet to come, for now can we please  just set our sights on saving lives?

Bruce Hammal ● 2176d

Peter, there will always be a compromise between trying an experimental scheme out and implementing a permanent, irreversible plan.However, if a scheme shows that it is delivering on the aims even if it is not optimum, then there are good reasons for implementing a permanent solution, taking into account the lessons learned. In that way there is the possibility for iteration to a better outcome over the proposed permanent scheme.Of course there are risks that a temporary scheme may just not be able to deliver on the overall aims simply because of its more limited scope. However, to say there is a choice between "doing it properly or not at all" is often a false dichotomy.

Tom Pike ● 2176d

Agree, and the over 65s are the people who are less likely to walk as they feel vulnerable, have said before make the streets safe first.

Janice Evans ● 2176d

You are taking the piss aren't you Michael? 'Reform Party'? Deluded racist chancer Trumpist! National Front anyone?

Basil Finnis ● 2176d

Agree with Peter.

Janice Evans ● 2176d

Bruce, I hope we agree it's better not to caricature positions we oppose: of course gridlocking streets is not a sensible option but transferring road space from cars to active transport does not imply that, as the Embankment very clearly shows.You might have detected a change in tone in the latest announcement from Grant Shapps, much less on COVID and rather more on the other benefits of active travel. Those benefits in terms of health and congestion, as well as pollution and emissions, are not realised just by transferring from fossil fuels to electricity. In the latter case, we need to decarbonise supply and that's going to take time. We need to move faster than that on transport emissions.But we agree, this is going to be a process that involves some disincentives. The government has said clearly that the opinion of those that feel aggrieved by these measures cannot determine the overall outcome if it is in the greater interests of us all.

Tom Pike ● 2176d

As ever Tom, cogently if selectively argued! You say we agree on the stick, but you ignore the carrot as an option and you yet again use one existing scheme as some sort of evidence that "if it works there it will work everywhere" no matter how different the circumstances . You may be right but equally there is the distinct possibility that you are wrong. If that turns out to be the case I'm afraid I am left wondering about the will or indeed the financial ability of the local authority to reverse these measures. Is the budget there and can elements be judged individually? For example the Cycleway seems to assume the closure of TGT and Fishers Lane when in theory it should be possible to have one without the other. Finally I think the DoT press release is a classic bit of governmental  arse-covering - there's something in there to cover all eventualities as has been demonstrated on this very discussion. Pick a view, any view, there's a line you can use to support your position.I'm you know this already, but never trust a politician.

Bruce Hammal ● 2176d

Oh and by the way, while we abandon our cars, who is going to tell the good news to the millions in China, south-east Asia and the sub-continent who want nothing more in life than to trade in their bikes for affordable locally-made runabouts? I don't think they're going to like it.

Bruce Hammal ● 2176d

Shapps is a two faced liar like most of our politiciansThis is what his department has released todayhttps://youtu.be/bwBIYmTE9UQPlenty of money around for spin and propaganda, i also noticed they switched off the comments for this video so that any dissenting voices are not heard

Rahman Hyatt ● 2176d

The reality is local people were not able to comment on these LTN’s and it is only local people who should have a say no lobby groups. In terms of the cycle path it is incredibly badly designed all the opposition to it was very clearly highlighted and obvious without needing any expert skills. LTN’s implemented on the right residential streets are fine if that’s what the local people decide. No one is opposed to sensible cycle lanes which are fit for purpose and cyclists must use them in these areas and not the roads. None of this is the case on the High Road. The council should not be given funding without demonstrating that residents have been consulted and support such a scheme. It’s pretty basic stuff council submit a proposal which is compliant to the guidelines. Labour councils are well known for bad money management. Politics should not play any role regarding local scheme, the residents voice should be the only one that matters.

Jayne Thorburn ● 2176d

None of the interviewees seemed to be using a cycle lane on anything remotely resembling a busy shopping street. In fact I noticed the one next to the dual carriageway looked a lot like the rejected route alongside the A4.

Bruce Hammal ● 2176d

I want to see the Chiswick Councillors do a local version of this video.

Paul Campbell ● 2176d

"The LibDem poll was self-selecting, so again, can't be taken as a reliable indication of public opinion"This is precisely the case with any cycle or LTN consultation which I will call a poll. Questions are weighted, ability to respond freely is limited or worse, impossible, and the sampling culled from those known to support such initiatives. Oddly, those who are most impacted are those whose engagement is ostracised, demonized, unwelcome, ignored or just not solicited in any way shape or form.And then the results of that poll are presented as fact.

David Lesniak ● 2175d

“However, if a scheme shows that it is delivering on the aims even if it is not optimum, then there are good reasons for implementing a permanent solution, taking into account the lessons learned. In that way there is the possibility for iteration to a better outcome over the proposed permanent scheme.”   So the Chiswick scheme has proven to be a complete failure and failed on all the aims you would agree Tom. So lesson learnt, pull the damn thing down and back to the drawing board. Locals are fed up with this, another 35 mins drive from Hammersmith to home at 11 am yesterday, farcical. what is it going to be like when we get back to normal and what infuriates people more is people like you who come on here and make out the scheme is a huge success with traffic moving along and lower pollution levels , what a load of b@l@cks. Please stop insulting us, the scheme is a total disaster which is going to ruin our high road.

James Smith-Jones ● 2175d

Of course they don't Bruce. I think sticking a 'temporary' bike lane down a major commercial road with no impact modelling has not been tried before. TFL have never cared a hoot about W4 and they don't now. The Hounslow mob want the kudos from their cycling community for showing their pro credentials and to grab some funding. The loud proponents are those that do not personally experience any of the downsides and benfit themselves from their own quiet roads or transport choices. Anyone who suffers, be it from more dangerous pollution or a dependence on buses, are collateral damage.

Paul Green ● 2175d

To close bus lanes for I hope a temporary cycle lane in CHR is bonkers. I try not to think about the incompetence of local and national politicians. My blood pressure is too high already.

Chris Dakers ● 2175d

Every time someone supports this scheme, I walk down the High Road and don’t know whether to laugh or cry. I then read all the posts on local forums of how people’s lives are being destroyed. None of those supporting it can possibly do any of these things.

Maggie Dodge ● 2175d