Thread by @james_gleave2

This is an extremely good article by @GeorgeMonbiot on the benefits of #LTNs. I'd just like to add something as a transport planner about an under-appreciated aspect of this. That of priorities. 1/n

https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1554716734535487489

To achieve meaningful change and tackle the climate crisis we need to do several things. Better public transport, reduced traffic and more cycling on main roads, the same in neighbourhoods, and discouraging car travel especially through pricing. 2/n

In an ideal world we would do it all. But even if we had the politics behind us and the funding, we must prioritise our resources as best we can to achieve our objectives. We literally cannot do it all at once, and you can't close every road in a city for construction 3/n

Priorities are also affected by funding availability. Funding comes with strings attached and deadlines which makes it more complex, and you don't want to lose the cash. So you choose. LTN first? Bike track first? What is it? 4/n

Engineers and programme managers make these calls all the time. They are hard choices and some are forced on them, but it's the job and they don't complain about it mostly.

Delivering our plans involves tough choices on priorities to keep on track 5/n

And here is a hard truth. Many of those against LTNs are not interested in the realities of choices. Those people say in one breath that we should prioritise reducing traffic on main roads, but will object to any such plans to do so when they come up. 6/n

Such people like the idea of what is needed to reduce transport carbon emissions, but not the reality of it. And if you don't support the reality, you don't support the idea. 7/n

Also, the reality is that as the programme of work is delivered, there will be winners and losers. Some places will be affected in the short term, others won't. Some people will have things worse, others won't. 8/n

We try to be equal and just in how we deliver, and engineers could do better in talking to those with the greatest needs. And who are often discriminated against.

But ensuring that NOBODY is negatively affected is too high a bar to achieve. It's impossible. 9/n

If you set that bar that high, you don't want change. You say you do, but you don't like how it works in reality. LTNs are not perfect, but they a part of our low carbon future. If you object to them on principle, you don't want change. And chances are, you never will.

/Rant

As this has now had the sight of the usual suspects on both sides of the LTN debate, a few more things need to be covered. Some of which neither side will like.

If you don't think LTNs are the priority, that's fine. I understand that position. So let's reduce traffic on main roads then. You happy with some traffic diverting onto residential roads? It's fine to say yes, so long as you know it's a consequence.

Maybe you think road user charging is a priority. You happy with charging people on low incomes who drive more to use the road, so long as overall there is a benefit to most people? Again, it's fine to say yes on that.

Perhaps more buses or trains are good. People like them. You happy to support them as they run empty for a few years while you deliver other measures to encourage their use, as it's worth it in the long run? Again, no issues with a yes on that one.

And whatever your priority is, are you happy for other stuff that could benefit a lot of people to be delivered at a later date? Can you justify your logic? Can you predict, within bounds of reasonableness, that it will achieve the objectives we agree on? No issues with a yes.

But if you say yes to any of that, and then block progress (raising issues is fine) because of a potential issue that has been raised, you are not helping. You are protesting. Protesting is fine and your right, but it almost never delivers. Delivery is what you are judged on.

This does not mean that we cannot deliver, find out there are problems, and fix them. Maybe even get rid of schemes if they do not meet our mutually agreed objectives and show evidence they are working against them. That is VITAL to delivery.

And yes, it's best to deliver with some degree of democratic accountability and remit. The early LTNs in 2020 were, in some cases, contrary to this. It got people upset and on the back foot. I stated so (offline) at the time that this is a problem.

Finally, if you object to LTNs and traffic reduction on principle, that's fine. I disagree with you, but that's fine.

But if you say that you want to reduce traffic, and oppose every move that actually does this, and you disagree with priorities, I have no time for you.