Locals urge council to "stop low traffic neighbourhoods and cycle lanes" to help cut down costs, but council claims responses not a "representative sample of residents"

Effective for who though?  Well, thanks for being honest ("for me!").

You could make this into a "sales point" I guess - "keep all those others out but you keep your free drive-through pass" would probably be popular.

Before we go further - there's a good collection of evidence here.

Because there's no rat-running outside rush hours, and children only play in the streets outside those times etc?

Emergency services being "disrupted" again?  Bingo!  (There are no doubt a few exceptions - but the evidence is apparently "no, this isn't a thing" - the commonly cited study is here).  Our emergency services already have figured out efficient ways through our congested streets.  We can make suitable modal filters, there have long been keys for bollards and we can get by "modal filters" plus some other inventive solutions etc. (The end of the last article features an informative response by the Fire Brigade!)

"LTNs" are nothing new, in fact many places in the UK are effectively "LTNs" - just without the triggering name.

Perhaps we should go back and "open up" the existing ones?  But ... I think you'll find this is unpopular with the residents!  And beware those "key fobs" / "time limit" ideas - you might find that other people didn't obey those restrictions e.g. started obtaining their own keys (already happens with standard locks) etc.

In fact one of the things LTNs are "effective" for is making places far more friendly for local people when they aren't in cars.  Motor traffic volume (no people passing through, just "access") and speed reduction.  It is exactly them being "not through-permeable" which is desireable for that...

While I see the value in LTNs for reducing traffic in residential areas, I believe they should target the worst incidents of rat-running without unnecessarily impacting local traffic and emergency services. My suggestion of focusing restrictions on peak times was meant as a compromise to address these issues, especially for those of us who rely on road access for work.

Although your link states that emergency services are okay with it, my best mate, who was a paramedic, has a different opinion. His experiences suggest that the situation on the ground can be more complex.

I understand that the link you provided supports LTNs, but it doesn’t seem exactly neutral. For example, when you're in a van trying to cover a few hundred yards and end up having to make a 2-mile detour late in the evening—as I did in Exeter—it’s hard to see how this setup reduces pollution.

One of the roads in Exeter that was blocked off is actually named after where it goes. It’s difficult to view that road as a "rat-run" when it’s clearly meant to connect specific areas. I believe there's room for a solution that both limits unnecessary through traffic while ensuring that local traffic, including essential services, isn’t disproportionately affected.

If you're a delivery driver or have such a business I'd have thought you would be in favour of everything which reduces the number of other drivers on the roads?  What slows drivers down the most?  Other drivers!  And since motor vehicles take up lots of space a change of only a few drivers either way can make a big difference to travel times.

Where your idea is in fact already in effect is where it makes most sense - with delivery windows for businesses in a dense city centre.  Or a common weaker version (especially in the UK of course!) a zone that is pedestrianised for some hours of the day.

Beyond that - I'd suggest it's choices.  I'd suggest we can't really have "a bit of both" when it comes to mass motoring.  If we just want our car-lined streets to be a bit quieter, but retain our ability to drive directly to the shops at either end either (and of course likely meet lots of other drivers there...) your idea is the one to go for.  I suggest that is indeed the "not very much change" route.

My particular view is that - if we want change at all - we will need to consider thinking a bit further.  Which - I appreciate - is "radical" in the UK.  But other people, living all across e.g. Europe seem to manage just fine.  And indeed in some places in the UK too.  (Here are some of the solutions for ensuring this).

In fact - I'm not aware that all the existing "LTNs" (or "less motor-traffic permeable estates", or "cul-de-sacs") are filled with people bemoaning the fact they can't drive out in every direction.  Or that deliveries / the emergency services are unacceptably delayed.

(That's all the idea means BTW - it's just to stop somewhere being a through route for motor traffic.  Such places are still completely accessible by drivers.  In all cases *** it's possible to pass through on foot, in a mobility vehicle or even on a bike - indeed the traffic volume reduction should encourage this.  *** Except for a cul-de-sac or estate not originally built with through-access - and some of these do have paths allowing pedestrians or even cyclists additional routes).

Of course - I defer to your mate's hands-on experience.  There have been a few other people who say "things are terrible now".  But ... apparently very few, and not the vast majority of emergency service organisations.  Several of which have explicitly stated that various schemes have not been a problem.

As for "it was named that" ... well, things change function over time.  Indeed - our "streets" are a very good example; they were never designed to take the volume of traffic (or speed or size of vehicle...) they now do!

We know that "where it's easy to drive, Brits drive" (in fact - everybody drives).  That has turned out to be a bit of a problem already *.  If we want to avoid worse, never mind make "nicer places" we need both push and pull to effect change.  So that is "reducing the convenience of driving relative to walking, cycling etc. - or just discouraging so many trips being driven".

* And more coming down the road with growing population / energy demand and perhaps supply issues).  It's also led to things like the disappearance of local facilities (partly the reason for more deliveries) and "places" where people only go out to get into a motor vehicle.  We can't turn back the clock, nor would people want to.  What we can do is "tame the motor vehicle" to get all the benefits without the worst of the side-effects.

Well - I hadn't watched that Dutch "bollards - and more" video for a long time - you can in fact see they have both "city centre retracting bollards" (e.g. for buses) but some for residents (although I'd be confident it's not "one for each LTN").  In theory I guess permit holders could be anyone - and while I'd imagine there's some "Dutch pragmatism" I'd guess it's not "... and delivery firms get access all areas in town"?  Don't know though.

Another point to note is that very frequently Dutch streets (as opposed to roads, for going places) in "LTNs" - or city "compartments" are one-way, which can also help reduce the attractiveness for "through-traffic".

Once you ask the respondents to self-select, you are always going to get the (overly) vocal minority involved.

Mr Angry on the Clapham Omnibus seems to actively seek out online consultations to get their point across, regardless of whether it directly affects them.

A 'proper' consultation would involve at least asking every person in the district - maybe a letter to each person on the electoral roll (a sort of non legally binding referendum…).  Maybe most of those people wouldn't bother responding but at least you know they had the chance.

brooksby wrote:

A 'proper' consultation would involve at least asking every person in the district - maybe a letter to each person on the electoral roll (a sort of non legally binding referendum…).

Treating (and presenting) consultations as (half-assed) referenda is a big part of the problem. The point of a consultation is not to conduct an informal poll - it's to invite thoughts and perspectives that you may not have considered so that you can then assess the merit and weight of those contributions and sythesise them into a coherent proposal that is as well-informed as it can be.

If you want to then have a referendum on that end result, fine, but conflating consultation and referendum is where we often go wrong (with both).

Agree.  There are other issues too though.  For a couple of Edinburgh ones there have been claims (and counter-claims) of "bussing in respondents" or at least martialling groups to treat these as single-issue (e.g. just selecting all the "no change, let cars run free" options).  TBF that could work for any perspective - note people on this site asking for comments from all on what might be expected to be more "local" consultatations.

The other point is that the "don't consult on 'do or don't, consult on how' " can also cut both ways (and be demotivating).  I've seen active travel consultations where I was screaming for a "none of the above - do something completely different" box but it was clear that either A, B or C were on offer (at best) and nothing more.  Again - schemes have to be limited (sometimes ... very limited) but when it's so obvious you're being asked whether you want mayo or tomato sauce on a dog-toffee sandwich the temptation just to not bother responding (and lending legitimacy) is high.

I guess the ideal is something like you do the consultation when you already know the result - but ONLY because you've done enough work with people beforehand that they understand what is being delivered will work for them or are prepared to put up with it.

I'd argue that the 'work beforehand' to have a whole series of two-way conversations with people and groups so that you understand their issues and concerns, and they understand the contraints, trade-offs, and other reasons behind your decisions, is actually all part of the consultation.

Getting people to fill in a form really doesn't constitute a consultation on its own.

I definitely agree!  But how we see it discussed tends to be about the sending the form, collecting responses.  Which I agree is taking the icing for the cake - but it's not clear to me that the whole cake is regularly served!  (Never mind to people who just e.g. see a notice appear somewhere - not infrequently about the time submissions are closed.  Or who have mentally filtered these out because "they don't listen to us" but then get outraged because "we weren't informed!").

I do a lot of consultation work and it never ceases to amaze me how many people don't know what a consultation is actually for. For precisely the reasons you've mentioned, I suspect.

It's irrelevant, though. Most council consulations are a sham.

Mr Angry ain't on no bus...

"The opinion of 10,000 men is of no value if none of them know anything about the subject." ― Marcus Aurelius

eburtthebike wrote:

My memory must be playing tricks again, as I can't remember being consulted over massive road "improvements" that cost vast amounts of money but don't actually improve anything.  Why is there consultation over things which actually do improve things?

Likewise, no consultation notification made it in my direction either. Maybe they stuck it on one in a thousand streetlamps as they are wont to do, even in these days of letterboxes, email, advertising, internet...

712 respondents out of a population of around 550,000 (all ages, depending on the boundaries used) isn't exactly representative.

eburt wrote:

My memory must be playing tricks again, as I can't remember being consulted over massive road "improvements" that cost vast amounts of money but don't actually improve anything.  Why is there consultation over things which actually do improve things?

In the next village over from mine, there has been a huge row because an empty field - not a public right of way or anything, just a huge empty field - got turned into allotments.  Suddenly there were all sorts of appeals for planning enforcement, the council kept changing its mind and wanting more evidence, various rare birds were suddenly discovered nesting there, the locals in the village (a village with no social housing, a much higher than average household income, and very good sized gardens throughout) complaining about how allotments weren't needed anyway and they would be an eyesore (even though they can't be seen from the road or the village).  Celebrities got involved, which says a lot about the connections of the people living there.

And yet there was no outrage about building two enormous detached houses in the gardens of another big house in the middle of the village.

And no outrage over another farmer - on the other side of the village, and arguably more visible to the road - leasing out their land to cover their fields in a solar panel array.

I had a point to make, but seem to have lost it somewhere… 

Welcome to the world of planning, where NIMBYs run free and shout loudly.  When I got elected to the District Council last year, my first mistake was to volunteer for the planning committee.