| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Connollys bus gate | |
| Posted by: | Paul Campbell | |
| Date/Time: | 23/06/21 12:52:00 |
| I didn't miss your point. I am explaining how politicians see and evaluate the choices that they are making about transport management. I also did not make a judgment on the morality of the choices they make. The Councils who prioritise the rights of residents on minor roads to not have through-traffic on them have made a moral judgment that has factored in the impact on distributor roads. I could get into a debate about whether that is right or wrong and reference the various studies that make those politicians comfortable with that moral choice but that has been done to death on here already. Suffice to say they are aware of it and have formed a judgment and made their decisions accordingly. They believe the benefits outweight the disadvantages and are for the greater good. I agree with them. Wandsworth Council agrees with your views on this and so do other authorities. They believe that the disadvantages outweigh the advantages and the greater good is better served by allowing cars unrestricted access to the road network in their areas. I disagree with your point that the most fervent opponents of road changes live on the main roads. But again I've made that point before plenty of times. I believe that the people like the founders of The OC live on quiet roads with no through-traffic, are not suffering from displacement from new schemes and are drivers who feel their right to unrestricted driving should be prioritised over the right of residents to not have them driving down their roads. You can say I am wrong about that and where they live but it isn't really a factor in the decision-making on this anwyay. I think you are overestimating the process that established the historic LTNs. They were typically not widely consulted upon, they did not consider views of people from farther afield or sometimes even anybody outside the one street that had the restriction put in, they were triggered by a handful of residents lobbying for changes, Councils doing some pretty rudimentary evaluations before agreeing and implementing. One day a driver turns up and realises they can't go down a road and that is it. With these new schemes the same thing has happened but the bar for consultation and evalutation has been set at a much higher level. Residents have lobbied the Council for changes, due to the change in statutory guidance from government the Council then made some decisions to implement changes that they thought would help to solve the problems identified by those residents as a trial, then they have conducted an extensive consultation and data-gathering exercise facilitated by independent consultants before making any final decision on what should happen. the process is more inclusive and consultative that what happened several decades ago. Some might argue that has actually not helped with public attitude to change. I know that residents lobbied for change and that Fishers Lane is one of the changes that has been lobbied for over a very long period of time Opinions on the cycle route from Acton will vary and you are welcome to yours. I have mine and it is different. I may have asked you this before but have you used Waze? If not I would recommend that you do and then reconsider your proposed technology solution. I could explain why but the experience will have more impact. |