Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

slowster
Moderator
Posts: 4631
Joined: 7 Jul 2017, 10:37am

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by slowster »

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -win-votes

If the premise of the above article is correct, there seems to be a big difference in developing and implementing good cycling infrastructure between those towns and areas which have directly elected mayors vs. those which elect councillors who have the power to make decisions over these issues.

It seems that where decisions are taken by a number of councillors, who are typically elected on a low voter turnout and largely voted for solely on the basis of whatever political party they represent, the outcome is worse than a local democracy model where the powers are concentrated in a single elected position. I suspect that this will apply similarly to decisions about issues under the control of local elected bodies other than cycling, i.e. this is a bigger issue than just decisions on cycling policies.

The low voter engagement of the councillor model of local democracy enables individuals to be elected whose decisions once in power are driven largely by personal bias rather than evidence, and who get away with that because the profile of the councillor is low and they do not attract public and media scrutiny in the way that a directly elected mayor will do.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by thirdcrank »

I've been forecasting the transfer of criminal enforcement powers to traffic authorities. Leeds City Council, in common with plenty of others, uses cameras to enforce traffic orders relating to the free movement of buses eg bus lanes and the "bus gates" on the "bus box." This is a ring route in the city centre where limited access is permitted for loading/unloading, but traffic other than buses or cycles cannot use it as a ring route. This is a bit like the non-criminal enforcement of yellow line parking.

Now, the big philosophical (?) leap would be to extend this to camera enforcement of speeding, traffic lights and more illegal manoeuvres using the criminal justice system. It was a source of friction when the police were more active in traffic enforcement but we now have the absurd situation where traffic authorities want to discharge their road safety responsibilities by eg speed reduction schemes but they are dependent on police agreement to reduce limits and on police enforcement to enforce them. AFAIK, this is why so many traffic management schemes depend on physical means such as humps , road narrowings and obstructions. Cameras could do much of the job, but chief constables don't want the negative association with "cash cows."
==========================
Re local councillors: they are so often terrified of upsetting people over things like residential parking.
ratherbeintobago
Posts: 974
Joined: 5 Dec 2010, 6:31pm

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by ratherbeintobago »

mjr wrote: 29 Oct 2021, 6:48pm One point that Camcycle seem excited about is "In December we will commence the remaining elements of Part 6 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, allowing local authorities outside London to apply for an order designating powers to civilly enforce moving traffic contraventions; examples include disregarding one-way systems or entering mandatory cycle lanes. The police will retain powers to enforce such restrictions, should they need them." I think thirdcrank has written about this elsewhere recently.
This is potentially a good step. Enormous (if inadvertent) harm was done by Eric Pickles when he made it harder for councils to issue parking fines.

Personally the thing that I think will make a big difference (certainly in GM where there’s a massive disparity between the mayor’s ambitions and the councils who have to deliver them) is the recently closed consultation to allow metro mayors to assume powers over ‘key routes’.
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6261
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by Bmblbzzz »

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -win-votes

If the premise of the above article is correct, there seems to be a big difference in developing and implementing good cycling infrastructure between those towns and areas which have directly elected mayors vs. those which elect councillors who have the power to make decisions over these issues.

It seems that where decisions are taken by a number of councillors, who are typically elected on a low voter turnout and largely voted for solely on the basis of whatever political party they represent, the outcome is worse than a local democracy model where the powers are concentrated in a single elected position. I suspect that this will apply similarly to decisions about issues under the control of local elected bodies other than cycling, i.e. this is a bigger issue than just decisions on cycling policies.

The low voter engagement of the councillor model of local democracy enables individuals to be elected whose decisions once in power are driven largely by personal bias rather than evidence, and who get away with that because the profile of the councillor is low and they do not attract public and media scrutiny in the way that a directly elected mayor will do.
Interesting article but I have doubts as to how far it applies. All the examples they give are either national capitals or very large cities, often both: Paris, Oslo, London, Detroit, Montreal, Sydney... It doesn't seem to work at the level of provincial cities with directly elected mayors, at least not in the UK: thinking of Liverpool, Manchester, Bristol, Leicester, Middlesbrough and the like. Only Manchester can be said to have a similarly active policy. Councillors are reliant on re-election but it's true that they are mostly elected on a party basis; the same is true though of mayors. And whereas councillors have the national party to power them and each other to blame, mayors have no one. They have to carry the can, they have no one to blame. Whereas some are emboldened by this (three cheers to Hidalgo!) others are cowed by it.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by thirdcrank »

... driven largely by personal bias rather than evidence ....


IME, no matter how free individual councillors are from personal bias and/ or base their policies on evidence, the simple fact is that low electoral turnouts and sometimes small majorities mean they can lose their seats through the residents of a couple of streets being rattled about something like a traffic scheme. I can imagine a Low Traffic Neighbourhood being an example of this: residents will support rat-runs being plugged, but only to the extent that their own driving freedom is not restricted
User avatar
Audax67
Posts: 6001
Joined: 25 Aug 2011, 9:02am
Location: Alsace, France
Contact:

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by Audax67 »

Dead on ^^^. T'other day a carborne twerp coming the other way took advantage of me being in the bike lane of one of those pestilential chicane efforts to usurp my right of way, and damn near hit me. It seems the 1-metre clearance you have to leave in built-up areas only applies to overtaking: coming the other way you can go as close as you damn well like (N.B. de facto, not de jure).
Have we got time for another cuppa?
ratherbeintobago
Posts: 974
Joined: 5 Dec 2010, 6:31pm

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by ratherbeintobago »

Only Manchester can be said to have a similarly active policy.
As one who lives in Greater Manchester, I can assure you that the ambition of the mayor’s office and the reality on the ground are very different, largely because the mayor has no power (currently) to build infrastructure and the councils that do, don’t want to. It’s easy to speculate why, but councillors being afraid of electoral backlash seems likely in some places, and in others (looking at CoM) an effectively unopposed and complacent Lab administration has been in power forever - and Lab always seems disappointing on environmental issues.

Salford is a notable exception, but Bolton/Bury/Rochdale/Oldham have done very, very little, and I don’t think CoM and Stockport have done much either.
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6261
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by Bmblbzzz »

Ah. A little bit of research I should've done before shows me that Andy Burnham, with Chris Boardman as his spokesman, is mayor of the Manchester metro region, not the city. I think the powers of metro mayors vary slightly from region to region – certainly in practice if not in theory. In any case, they're different from those of a city mayor such as Hidalgo.
ratherbeintobago
Posts: 974
Joined: 5 Dec 2010, 6:31pm

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by ratherbeintobago »

The outgoing leader of City of Manchester Council is a man called Sir Richard Leese, who frankly provided a fine demonstration of why 25 years leading a council is too long for anyone, and who oversaw such shitshows as the Great Ancoats St ‘European style boulevard’ and the famous mobility hub (which is a multi-storey car park)

As an aside, CoM Labour tried to claim last election that they’d been prevented from building all kinds of green infra by the opposition… while holding 94/96 seats.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by thirdcrank »

Looking at this from another angle, it's a form of democracy, or rather a layer of our form of democracy. If people want to be able to decide what happens in the street outside their house, it's pointless only grumbling if they want to be able to use that street for their own private purposes: you have to change the model of democracy.
Stevek76
Posts: 2086
Joined: 28 Jul 2015, 11:23am

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by Stevek76 »

thirdcrank wrote: 30 Oct 2021, 7:33am the simple fact is that low electoral turnouts and sometimes small majorities mean they can lose their seats through the residents of a couple of streets being rattled about something like a traffic scheme. I can imagine a Low Traffic Neighbourhood being an example of this: residents will support rat-runs being plugged, but only to the extent that their own driving freedom is not restricted
Think it's more a fear that they can lose their seats. Those that persue such policies are almost always rewarded at the ballot box. However few have much knowledge on accurately assessing public opinion and will hugely over value the views of those talking/writing to them and not those who mostly just get on with their lives other than going to vote.

Regarding mayors, they can be more radical but also more of an obstruction. As far as mayors go in England, the distinctions do need to be noted. Metro mayors generally don't have control over a key route network like in London. Most do have the power to create one but presently it has to be in negotiation with the constituent councils so none have. There is a consultation out currently on making this power variously more unilateral.

Council mayors are just an alternative council running model. A council mayor has identical powers to a council leader under the leader + cabinet model but a leader can be replaced if he loses support of full council while a mayor cannot. The council mayor system is a fairly bad one in my view, it lacks sufficient checks and balances and the negative effects of that have been seen in several councils.
The contents of this post, unless otherwise stated, are opinions of the author and may actually be complete codswallop
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by thirdcrank »

In my long-gone campaigning days, I got involved with quite a few elected representatives at all levels. On the particular issue of residents' parking, one experienced local councillor, a regular utility cyclist and genuinely keen to promote cycling, described what I'm saying as Realpolitic. I think that a pluralist model of politics not only counts votes, but tries to take account of the depth of feeling. And things like Low Traffic Neighbourhoods cause feelings to run high (or perhaps that should be deep.)
Bmblbzzz
Posts: 6261
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by Bmblbzzz »

Stevek76 wrote: 30 Oct 2021, 3:49pm Council mayors are just an alternative council running model. A council mayor has identical powers to a council leader under the leader + cabinet model but a leader can be replaced if he loses support of full council while a mayor cannot. The council mayor system is a fairly bad one in my view, it lacks sufficient checks and balances and the negative effects of that have been seen in several councils.
Directly elected city mayors in the UK do not have the power to do anything that a council as a whole could not do. However, because they can act unilaterally, even in the face of opposition from the councillors as a whole, they have the effective ability to do far more than a council, which will spend time on debates and usually result in some sort of compromise. The councillors are effectively mere advisors who can be ignored. But the directly elected mayor also has to account for their actions to the electorate every four years, and this might hold them back. And of course they are politicians, probably more so than councillors, with all the promises that entails.
prestavalve
Posts: 126
Joined: 24 Dec 2020, 8:03pm

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by prestavalve »

Bmblbzzz wrote: 30 Oct 2021, 6:01pm But the directly elected mayor also has to account for their actions to the electorate every four years, and this might hold them back.
A "come-at-able" (Bagehot) authority is always preferable to a committee when it comes to getting things done.
Jdsk
Posts: 24640
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Low Traffic Neighbourhoods?

Post by Jdsk »

"Berlin’s Transformation Is Wunderbar: a San Francisco Transplant’s View":
https://sf.streetsblog.org/2021/12/06/b ... ants-view/

Jonathan
Post Reply