It pisses me off so much that the car lobby is able to get traction on manipulating the fears of people about change and sometimes disingenuously weaponising their concerns with short term and minor traffic displacement arguments weaponised by air quality impacts.
Are you really accusing me of being in the car lobby? What on earth have I said, in the midst of all the other stuff, to make you think that? I know my posts are too wordy, but that they can be misread like that is shocking.
I've tried throughout this thread to concentrate on Atlantic Road and been countered with general waffle that any intervention to impede cars is good and displaced traffic will simply evaporate. Evidence to the contrary has been entirely ignored. When pushed to generalise I've proposed draconian rationing to force the vast bulk of vehicle usage off the road, and been told it's too much and too expensive. I thought I've made clear I'm opposed to crude mileage based road pricing on social grounds and because it won't have the desired effect, not in order to keep cars moving. I've repeatedly tried to discuss risk and reward and the increased burden on those who live on, work on or use on the main road, tube and buses just as I've highlighted the campaign of the mother of little girl who died of asthma, and been either ignored or patted on the head and told that doesn't matter. In fact
thebackrow seems to think none of it matters so long as the traders on AR can do more business. And now you're insinuating I'm part of the car lobby!
But that said, thankyou, you have at least acknowledged this is about gentrification. I've tried that, too, and that's been ignored as well. Nobody except
Gramsci has said anything about the undercurrents at play. Has anyone looked at the 250 or so comments on the proposal? There are loads wanting to stop the rat run down, or near, their home street, obviously for the benefit of all and with no eye on house prices. Others want change for the benefit of businesses, as the post just above makes clear. There are plenty of good, gentrification-neutral proposals for ASLs and rephased pedestrian lights and stuff, but all of it needs to be read through the prism that is the underlying elephant sitting on the sofa. As I've tried to discuss.
This debate, such as it is, is about social exclusion and public acceptance and accountability, cars are just a part of it. Not everyone who lives round here is pro-gentrification and many, many of us can spot the signs and direction of travel, especially when seeded by Lambeth and picked up enthusiastically by the new demographic.
Without a Singapore style authoritarian regime any far-reaching* proposal must be intended to make a positive, direct quality of life improvement for more people than it harms, and must convince people that is the case. Otherwise it will founder at the ballot box.
Simply pretending this is all about cars and nothing else, and that any wider considerations are just distraction from the car lobby, is facile.
* ie something that will significantly reduce the overall number of vehicle on the roads, by a lot more than 50% say, not tiny, piecemeal, badly thought through schemes like this proposal.