When people say LTNs are 'divisive', what they really mean is 'let's go back to the days when we could drive wherever they wanted without any push-back'. All LTNs do is highlight the unsustainability of doubling the number of cars on our roads to 40 million in 30 years.
It's strange the same people didn't think 40,000 premature deaths in the U.K from air pollution - to which cars make a disproportionate contribution - long before the new Low Traffic Neighbourhoods was 'divisive'. Why? Because the media wasn't interested in our concerns.
It's strange the same people didn't think the disproportionate impact of air pollution on working class and minority ethnic communities from air pollution - to which cars make a disproportionate contribution - long before the new LTNs was 'divisive'. imperial.ac.uk/news/163408/et…
It's strange that those quick to emphasise the 'divisiveness' of LTNs were silent on the 3.9 billion increase in the number of miles driven through London's neighbourhoods between 2009 and 2019.
Where, I keep asking myself, are all the BBC stories about the 'divisiveness' of a 40% increase in pedestrian and cyclist casualties on London's residential roads between 2007 and 2018?
Where's the @LBC phone-in about the 'divisiveness' of London's 15,000km of roads being heavily-subsidised for, and largely for the use of, drivers, rather than all road users?
The willingness of the media to adopt one issue as 'divisive', while ignoring the profound impacts of failing to address the issue, speaks volumes about the power relations of our society, in which the well-off and well-connected are given more of a voice than those who aren't.
...and nothing illustrates this more than the time and effort dedicated by the BBC/Times/Telegraph to creating the perception that a minority of anti-LTN voices represent mainstream opinion, when we know from polling that this isn't the case...
...and, after last week's local elections, in which anti-Low Traffic Neighbourhoods candidates from Levenshulme to Hackney were comprehensively rejected at the ballot box, we now know what the mainstream opinion really is...
1/ Hedgerows are not only central to our sense of national identity, they're also of immense environmental value. Their loss, and potential for preservation and restoration, also tell the story of our unsustainable way of life and how we can step back from the brink.
2/ Since WWII, the U.K has lost half its hedgerows - a staggering 300,000 miles. Although rates of hedge destruction have been reduced since the high watermark of the 1980s, losses are still occurring due to removal and mismanagement, with huge environmental consequences.
3/ Not only do natural hedgerows reduce resource depletion by eliminating the need for wire and stakes sourced in unsustainable ways, they're also habitat for thousands of vulnerable species, which is why their removal is hastening the collapse of biodiversity.
1/ Here's a really good example of what some companies are getting right on sustainable product design; what they're getting wrong on sustainable product design; and why regulation is the - fundamental - missing piece of the excess consumption jigsaw.
2/ So, what do @clarksshoes get right? Elimination of petrochemical-based glues ✔️Efficient design of biodegradable upper, reducing material waste ✔️Minimal detailing, reducing embedded carbon from manufacturing ✔️Minimisation of dyes, reducing product's chemical footprint ✔️
3/ And what do @clarksshoes get wrong? Firstly, it's unclear what thread is used, but I suspect it's plastic-based, meaning that while the leather upper is biodegradable, the thread would need to be removed to avoid contamination. Switching to natural thread would remedy this.
2/ In my view, part of the reason for the propagation of this myth is to extend responsibility for road surface miles/injuries/emissions to a broader category of people, and therefore to delegitimise policy responses like LTNs. Data here: roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/summary
3/ Home deliveries are, of course, environmentally problematic - especially from a waste system perspective - but there is reason to believe that they also help eliminate some car journeys. The potential for delivery decarbonisation is also much greater than for private cars.
1/ Regardless of background, the closer people live to green space, the more likely they are to experience good physical/mental health, improving lives & reducing NHS costs.
THREAD on how we can address the 'green gap' & the climate crisis by radically reimagining our streets!
2/ Unfortunately, 'minority ethnic and low-income families are significantly less likely to have access to green space.' (More green space is linked to less stress in deprived communities, Landscape and Urban Planning, 105(3), 221–229; England's Green Space Gap - @friends_earth)
3/ So, in addition to the environmental necessity of investing in green infrastructure, there is also a strong social & public health case for expanding access to green space. In London, the scope for this appears limited, but that's because we're looking in the wrong places.
1/ In 2017, the London Assembly Transport Committee, Chaired by @CarolinePidgeon, undertook a scrutiny into congestion in London. In the fine tradition of pun-based City Hall committee investigations, they called it "London Stalling - Reducing traffic congestion in London"...
This scrutiny mainly uses data from the first five years of past decade, but concludes that long before the new LTNs...
🚘 Congestion in London was getting worse.
🛻 Vehicle speeds on main roads were down and journey time reliability worse.
🚐 Delays were up, including buses.
3/ Crucially, London Stalling concludes:
"Fundamentally, London’s road network is increasingly hosting more traffic than it has the capacity to cope with."
That was 2017.
In 2019, there were 1.3 billion more miles driven on London's roads than in 2017.
@RupaHuq 1/ Hi Rupa, with the greatest respect, I won't be taking lessons in comradely behaviour from somebody who has actively undermined a Labour Council attempting to address the huge environmental, social, and health costs of Ealing's 130,000,000 mile increase in driving since 2012.
@RupaHuq 2/ As regards my earlier tweet, I made no direct reference to you, nor did I tag or tweet at you. It was fine for Madelaine Albright to use the term “special place in hell", so I'm not sure why it should be off-limits for any other politician.
@RupaHuq 3/ Frankly, I think your attempt to sabotage Low Traffic Neighbourhoods is shamefully populist. But, it's easy for you do because you won't be at the Full Council when parents turn up to asking who is going to prevent their kids from being crushed by a 4x4 on the way to school.