low traffic neighbourhoods and politics...

Agreed but I was reminded again * that I witnessed genuine local people decrying the idea of making their road - going past their children's primary school - one-way.  The issue is simply that people normally don't see all the cars.  They're a fact of life like rain - you moan about it but accept.  And - with reason - people see the current congestion and think "if you block streets that's only going to get that much worse.  And people will be pulling stupid moves turning in the road / reversing out - chaos". Finally bicycles just aren't on most people's radar as an option - never mind a solution.  Again understandable given what leaders actually do rather than what they say.

There are counters to these concerns but seeing "change - in due course", fence-sitting or frank obstruction by those who could show some real leadership and remove some of these obstacles is tiring.  I'll have to be careful or I'll start believing that the only way that real change can happen is some catastrophe next. What was that, Mao? “A revolution is not a dinner party.. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another”.

* When a council election candidate turned up on the doorstep.  Don't worry - I'd cleared out the tiger pit after the last Jehovas Witnesses / Mormons / double-glazing salespeople ( whatever happened to them? )

OldRidgeback wrote:

My morning jogging route takes me along a busy road and it's notable that the traffic volumes have increased considerably since the streets parallel became LTNs. Some friends live in that street and are really pissed off about it. 

Unfortunately there will always be an element of no omelette without breaking eggs with any LTN, but hopefully that eases as people start to realise how much safer/more pleasant it is to ride, scoot or walk in the LTN. It really boils down to can we accept some increased traffic on boundary roads in return for significant decreases within (although quite a lot of research has shown only around 20% of boundary roads experience increased traffic). As someone who doesn't live in an LTN or on a boundary road I'd say yes, obviously if I lived where your friends do I might have a very different opinion.

I think it's as you and Awavey say.  Part of it is any change is likely to be unwelcome to most initially.  Even for those who quickly get used to or end up liking the new situation.  Plus local focus and low turnouts mean particular issues can carry the day.  That's mostly a good thing - apart from the effect of a few loud voices overwhelming small spaces / "me and my 3 friends make a crowd".

The trope of "LTNs just move the traffic around" has been contested.  In a sense though the argument gets lost in the usual manner of non-motoring provision - we make little of it and it's disconnected.  So you can get your kids to the edge of the LTN - where you immediately meet a busy and hostile main road, with pedestrians and cyclists squeezed to the edges.

Rendel Harris wrote:

It really boils down to can we accept some increased traffic on boundary roads in return for significant decreases within (although quite a lot of research has shown only around 20% of boundary roads experience increased traffic). As someone who doesn't live in an LTN or on a boundary road I'd say yes, obviously if I lived where your friends do I might have a very different opinion.

No-one asked whether we would tolerate increased traffic when they built new roads, widen existing roads, flatten houses and factories to build more car parks. No-one asked when they built out-of-town and peripheral shopping centres, sports and other facilities which are difficult to access without a car. Roads + cars = jobs and money.

The ongoing reduction in bus services and increase in fares further reduces choice and mobility. No-one asked whether parents wanted to their kids from going out to play the way my generation did. No-one asked when traffic around schools grew so significantly yet we all see the selfish backlash when someone tries to reduce the risks.

But why is it so objectionable when steps are taken to reverse some of this inaccuratley termed 'progress'?

And while I have sympathy for those on the roads who witness increased traffic I can't help thinking that they are only getting the same as lots of others have already lived with for decades. Instead of blaming the LTNs those people should be asking why so many cars are going past their front door. Even more so in a city like London where alternatives are considerably better than many other parts of the country.

No-one had a vote when satnav, googlemaps etc made residential streets between main roads a crafty short cut for lorries and rat-runners who on quiet days trim a few seconds off their journey but on busy days get the illusion of trimming a few seconds before joining the main road because they are moving slightly faster before re-joining sitting in traffic.  Most LTNs in London are reversing the effects of technology making commuters/delivery vans think they have 'the knowledge' in areas where the majority of locals don't have access to cars. To hear them whine about losing their shortcuts is funny but less so when they start justifying it due to some feined concern about disabled residents, pollution or whatever 

Well it depends local elections are notorious for low turnouts, which can always cause upsets and more unpredictability and if theres a key local issue some candidates are very passionate about and they get their vote out on it it's not unheard of it could impact the expected results. But it would be on a very localised ward by ward basis, I dont think LTNs as a whole are an election issue any party (including those environmentally focussed ones) are concerned with nationally or locally. And not everyone in the country is even having local elections next month anyway.