London voters back LTNs and cycle lanes, analysis of mayoral election results reveals

You are correct on your first line that one vote could be for multiple reasons. However we have had at least one vocal poster on here claim multiple times that the Anti-LTN vote was THE reason the Tory candidate supposedly did well. (even though percentage wise they pretty much had the same breakdown of results as 2016.)

Shaun Bailey did about the same as the previous Tory mayoral candidate, so it's difficult to see how his opposition to LTNs was one of the reasons he 'did well'.  He didn't do well.  Maybe you imagine that he would have lost even more badly had he not opposed LTNs? It's a bit far-fetched. Bailey did worse in the wards with LTNs, even in tory areas. One of the reasons is that LTNs are overwhemingly popular with the residents of the areas they are installed in. 

You're also muddled about Brexit: the only pro-remain boroughs in London were right on the fringes of the capital - Hillingdon, Sutton, Havering, Bexley and Barking - most of which, people unfamiliar with London are surprised to see count as London boroughs. London voted remain. It's hilarious that you characterise the affluent areas of Kensington as being pro-remain and anti-statue - you're ascribing the things that you hate about groups you hate, to the tory areas.  Again, it shows your lack of knowledge of the capital and undermines many of your previous comments. 

Actually, I'm pleasantly surprised that you don't hate any group. Usually when people use your mode of misinformation and lies it is fuelled by hate, so this is genuinely nice to know. I hope it's true. 

You say that everything that I'd written fails the most basic fact check. Yet what you followed this statement with didn't even dispute what I said, nor did it contain any facts (maybe you're unsure what a fact check is?). You did however give some of your opinions about declining tory support which seem general (although I'm sure they have lost some votes for these reasons) but, again, betray your lack of knowledge of the area that you are talking about. 

The 'ultra-elistest' areas of Kensington are the ones that are still safely tory, despite it not fitting your narrative.  K&C is made up of 18 wards. Like all London boroughs, it's a mixed borough, although much wealthier overall - if you have time, you could look up the voting in each ward and maybe furnish yourself with some facts. They won't dispute anything I wrote and the analysis won't really be appropriate for a forum about LTNs but they might make you look like you know what you're talking about occasionally.

Active travel is a dream, for most people. It isn't a realistic option, and it isn't possible for it to be one within, say, a decade, even if we prioritised it and funded it like the Manhattan Project.

It seems to be a dream that has come true (at least in part) in many european countries such as Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, even parts of France and Spain. The nightmare is a largely obese and mentally unwell nation such as GB whose child obesity rate is used in many university courses as an example of how soceity goes astray. For the vast majority of people it is a realistic, healthy and totally acheivable prospect. Where it struggles is more complex from a lazy false perception of how it is easier to take the car along with being scared of change and creation of a mental barrier that persuades people that the task is harder than it actually is, as a nation many have now become very conditioned to not being active which is the opposite to how the human body has evolved and is creating multitudes of real problems. The other real problem is the hostile environment to active travel be it pavement parking or non-existent cycle infrastructure, largely by a vocal minority whose sense of self entitlement and selfishness in wishing to be able to continue as they please regardless of the cost to others is considerable.  

Dave Dave wrote:

Active travel is a dream, for most people. It isn't a realistic option, and it isn't possible for it to be one within, say, a decade, even if we prioritised it and funded it like the Manhattan Project.

True, for those who disagree Google

"energy technologies institute" modal shift transport

ETI are a government research centre tasked with getting the UK to net zero.

TLDR the volume of passenger miles and tonne miles of freight moved by road is well beyond the capacity of other transport modes.

Active travel and LTNs are great but don't expect a massive change in the amount of passenger miles. The UK has fewer cars and drives them less distance than the Dutch for example.

Also one of the parts of the Dutch model that is missed is that they have a greater density of trunk roads than the UK and far more bypasses and ting roads to avoid cars driving through city centres.

I suggest that you Google

"energy technologies institute" transport modal shift

And read the report from the centre set up to work out how to reach net zero.

TLDR road transport is what we will be using for the foreseeable future. Have a look at the volumes of freight shifted by road, we aren't doing that by cargo bikes (or by train as the report investigates).

Likewise active transport is great but it's really tinkering around the edges. See Dutch as an example they drive as much as we do, they just cycle more as well.

The BBC website also had a recent news article claiming that electric car sales were about to rocket, based mostly on puff from the "University of Singularity", a California based bastion of mathematical ignorance. The narrative seems to forget pollution from car and road construction and battery charging, congestion and tyre particles in its delight over no tail pipe emissions.

TheBillder wrote:

The BBC website also had a recent news article claiming that electric car sales were about to rocket, based mostly on puff from the "University of Singularity", a California based bastion of mathematical ignorance. The narrative seems to forget pollution from car and road construction and battery charging, congestion and tyre particles in its delight over no tail pipe emissions.

Electric car sales are doubling every two years which would result in all new cars being electric before 2030.

This will happen simply because Tesla will do it on their own if the legacy manufacturers don't. As the world's most valuable industrial company they now have the finances to do it as well.

Regarding pollution due to the manufacturing of vehicles. EVs are no more energy intensive to make per kg than an ICE car and are mostly the same stuff anyway. Studies that suggested otherwise normally had an agenda.

One of the properties of 0 is that if you multiply anything by it the result is the same. We need to get the emissions of base materials production down to zero, once we do it doesn't matter how much of it we use (within reason). Fortunately there are several options or substitutions for all the major commodities.

Sorting out base commodity emissions is something beyond the pay grade of automotive, it will need global agreements and probably a schedule of tarrifs.

The grid is already 55% low carbon and well on track to net zero by 2050.

EVs don't solve everything but they are a concrete example of climate action being successful and actually being better than the ICE vehicles they replaced.

TheBillder wrote:

The BBC website also had a recent news article claiming that electric car sales were about to rocket...

That from an organisation that actively promotes cycle to work and has won the competition for cycle milage amongst other major London employers.

Perhaps that report came from the Salford office...

Perhaps one part doesn't know what another part thinks, like most large organisations.

Disappointing all the same.

wycombewheeler wrote:

But the consultations need to be managed to ensure they get the opnion of all residents, not only the most vocal, and also exclude the views of outsiders wanting to use neighbourhood streets as rat runs.

And make sure that the vote isn't influenced by biased media and biased organisations like Cambridge Analytica.

That never actually happened. CA claimed to try, although were basically ripping off their 'clients'; it's never been done successfully. And 'biased media' is a classic blame-the-voters spin.

But that's not true in every case, both Suffolk & Essex are Tory run councils, Essex received the highest allocation of active travel fund money for any local authority. Both have or are implementing new cycling infra whilst Suffolk certainly implemented many changes in opposition to Labour councillors & Tory MPs, whilst Essex are now actively implementing big changes in Colchester & Chelmsford where opposition councillors are at best lukewarm to it. Yes Essex still managed to waste 10million on a bunch of car centric roundabouts, so theyve still got a lot to learn, but they dont all fit this general stereotype of party politics.

Colchester has just turned blue following a new pact with independents, so it will be interesting to see about the new cycle infrastructure proposed aka 'war on motorists'. Proposing a dutch roundabout near the station which sounds a bit hairy !

Only 10M on the roundabouts? I reckon it will come in higher than that. Still not finished anyway !