Slightly patronising tone, but whatever. Sorry if I gave the impression that I think I own the streets - thank you for reminding me that I don't.
My point was that you're making generalisations that have no basis in fact as far as I can see.
I think I would benefit from this scheme personally yes - both in terms of the area being a nicer place to live and there being less domination by traffic, but so would everyone else that lives here as well - owners, renters, car owners and non-car owners alike. I accept your point that displacement may happen but think its worthwhile sticking with the trial period to be able to make decisions based on evidence rather than assertion.
After the end of the trial period if it's demonstrated that quality of life (however defined) of people living on main roads has suffered as a result then it shouldn't be permanent. I'm not clear on what basis the final decision will be made, but if it simply about asking those inside then I'd agree that is too narrow a base to make a proper judgement. Although on the basis of the discussions with neighbours and residents on surrounding roads, I wouldn't say its a foregone conclusion that it would go ahead given the number of people who are fearful of the disruption this is likely to bring.
I'm not wanting to personalise, sorry if that's how it came across.
I don't really disagree with your post, we have a lot of common ground, but there are points I want to tease out.
It seems pretty obvious that although you claim the benefits will go to "everyone else that lives here as well - owners, renters, car owners and non-car owners alike." that's not really the case. Benefits are not alike, even for insiders and there are few benefits for outsiders unless there really is some magical evaporation of traffic. There are potential capital gains for homeowners and landlords, possible rent increases for private tenants, no financial change for social tenants. Those who own and use cars presumably do so for reasons, and the LTN impact on them will be very different from that on those who don't. That's despite everyone breathing the same air, hearing the same streetnoise, walking the same pavements.
You're suggesting that the LTN shouldn't go ahead if "quality of life (however defined) of people living on main roads has suffered as a result ", but surely that's cart before horse. Those people already have the greatest burden, it's them and their welfare that should be at the heart of proposals for change, especially during a pandemic where lung health is of great importance. Rather than plan to increase main road traffic, and then wonder if there's any measurable effects, surely steps should be taken to reduce it? To some extent that's happened naturally, morning and evening peaks are much reduced as people aren't commuting and the West End and City are pretty empty, but reservations about public transport have increased reliance on cars for local journeys. One might have thought that targetted discussion and peer pressure, plus the government nudge unit and whatever else could have been given a chance to work towards a consensual new normal. Instead of which we have quite intentional social division and rancour.
BTW it's not just those living on, or very close to, the main roads, though they are likely to be the ones with the least economic choice. Plenty of people work there, in shops and offices where their Covid safety includes keeping windows open. We hear so much about children walking to school without mentioning how many schools are on main roads- the kids at Jubilee for instance will breath the displaced fumes. Professional drivers- delivery, cab, bus etc- will spend longer breathing pollution from stationary, idling vehicles, as will cyclists, pedestrians and bus passengers. Some of that may be measurable, but most of it not. Some may eventually, years or decades down the line, show up in estimates for premature deaths caused by poor air quality.
I'm not sure what facts you're seeking. The pollution map tells the real story, that the worst problems are on the main roads not the backstreets. I'd like to quote the headline recommendations for a (pre-Covid)
report if I may. What's actually happened is at odds with bullet point I've bolded, because it's redesigning the city to push all the pollution onto the most heavily used roads.
Air pollution is the biggest environmental threat to health in the UK, with between 28,000 and 36,000 deaths a year attributed to long-term exposure. There is strong evidence that air pollution causes the development of coronary heart disease, stroke, respiratory disease and lung cancer, and exacerbates asthma.
Professor Paul Cosford, Director of Health Protection and Medical Director at PHE, said:
Now is our opportunity to create a clean air generation of children, by implementing interventions in a coordinated way. By making new developments clean by design we can create a better environment for everyone, especially our children.
Key interventions local authorities can take include:
- promoting a step change in the uptake of low emission vehicles - by setting more ambitious targets for electric car charging points, as well as encouraging low emission fuels and electric cars
- boosting investment in clean public transport, as well as foot and cycle paths to improve health
- redesigning cities so people aren’t so close to highly polluting roads
- discouraging highly polluting vehicles from entering populated areas - for example, with low emission or clean air zones
This work could involve designing wider streets, or considering using hedges to screen against pollutants when planning new infrastructure.
Professor Cosford said:
We recommend that at a local level, any new policy or programme of work which affects air pollution should aim to deliver an overall benefit to the public’s health.
So transport and urban planners will need to work together, with others involved in air pollution to ensure that new initiatives have a positive impact.
Decision makers should carefully design policies, to make sure that the poorest in society are protected against the financial implications of new schemes.
I've also bolded the last point, because again it's at odds with the LTNs.
