Forum Topic

Paul, it maybe that the report you are thinking of was from Ealing Council and that an officer sought to defuse the conflict between the two authorities over the issue by claiming LTN21 wasn't responsible for extra traffic in Hounslow. Hounslow would never have accepted this and their original suggestion was the incorporation of Swyncombe Avenue into LTN21 but this was apparently rejected by Ealing. They then came up the idea of closing access at Boston Manor Road which would have washed back vehicles into LTN21 and its distributor roads. You might say that Paul Mason was 'spooked by One Ealing' but it is more likely he was influenced by the public pledges made by several ward councillors in areas where there were LTNs that they wouldn't support them if they were demonstrably unpopular. I don't think any of them having made these commitments would be prepared to adopt your argument about 'self-selecting polls' to dispute that the majority of their constituents are against LTNs. I don't think it is correct to say that there was any clarity in government policy towards LTNs. Obviously the structure of the way they were implemented should mean that in most circumstances they should operate for six months, but force majeure was also allowed for and many councils have abandoned schemes without punishment. LTN21 had operated for some time and it was only due to a technicality — the reissue of the ETO that it could be deemed to be cancelled early. There are clearly two factions at the Department for Transport, one led by Grant Shapps which has been giving reassuring messages about more consultation and no unpopular schemes being implemented and the other by Andrew Gilligan who has the upper hand due to the support of the Prime Minister. Peter Mason failed to recognise this and thought that a statement by the Minister. that unpopular schemes should be got rid of, was authoritative. What appears to have happened is that he has unwittingly made Ealing a target because the political closeness of Gilligan and Julian Bell has allow the latter to get some pay back.


Gordon Southwell ● 1469d

Sorry Paul but I'm still no clearer over what your point is exactly. You keep repeating the phrase 'self-selecting poll' as if we will all understand what you mean. Ealing held a consultation which was broadly along the lines of most other consultations held by them and other local authorities. While, given the resources available, these consultations are never going to be 100% accurate, no informed person disputes that they generally give a rough guide to what is the state of opinion if questions are phrased in a reasonably neutral way — which they were in this instance. In the case of the LTN surveys, the views of residents were so marked that it is laughable to argue against the conclusion that there is majority opposition to the schemes even if you might quibble on percentages. The view about traffic displacement into Hounslow borough is not only that of 'anti-LTN campaigners' but that authorities traffic officers who met on several occasions with the counterparts in Ealing to discuss the issue. I can't understand why you are so determined to stick to your opinion that there was no displacement when every bit of evidence says you are wrong. You are also wrong that the council would have anticipated Gilligan's response. Earlier pronouncements from the Department for Transport had stated that schemes should not be proceeded with if they lacked the support of local residents. Therefore Peter Mason thought he was on solid ground by proposing consultations on each scheme. Gilligan seems to have acted on his own authority in suspending Ealing's funding without reference to Grant Shapps and this is likely to have come as a shock to Ealing. Obviously if it was expected, Mason would not have adopted this strategy.

Gordon Southwell ● 1471d

>Paul, can you explain more why this wasn't a proper consultation but rather a 'self-selecting poll'? Er...>As far as I can see it was handled reasonably competently and delivered a result that was consistent with other measures of public opinion on the LTNs including Commonplace, petitions and emails to the council. You mean consistent with other self selecting polls?>The only way that it could be said to be self-selecting is that it was confined to people in or around the LTNs,It wasn't, but...> the ones that would be most likely to be supportive of the schemes if they were working as intended. And if the response was I'd agree.>To be frank I think you are calling into question the methodology of the consultation because you don't like the result. I was pointing out how silly it was BEFORE the result came out.>Unfortunately it is unlikely a different approach would give you a different result.That may be the case, but we don't know because a proper survey has not been done in ealing (apart from the mayoral elections which saw anti LTN candidates soundly rejected, but that's a complicated ask to analyse)>So on LTN21 you can offer no reason as an alternative to the generally accepted one of Swyncombe Avenue and adjacent traffic displacement but you think there is some dark reason behind it? "generally accepted"... you mean pushed by anti LTN people...>If you pause to reflect for a moment you'll recall that Andrew Gilligan appears to have used the early termination of LTN21 as the pretext for withdrawing Ealing's funding so whatever scheme you think Peter Mason may have been planning, it appears to have backfired badly.Not really! The council will have known this was going to happen.

Paul James ● 1471d

Hounslow and Ealing must be colluding.Hounslow are masters of appeasing local groups and keeping them at arms length but doing what they want regardless. They are less blunt than Ealing but equally manipulative.The Swyncombe Ave episode is a clear example. No proper consultation only residents of one road, perfect to divide and rule.Closure of Occupation Lane, using huge problems in particular for the mainly volunteer based transportation of elderly patients who cannot Walk of Cycle is another example.Hounslow imposed it but it is clearly marked as a road in the London Borough of Ealing. The strretiname signs state that and LBE funded the resurfacing and smoothing of the road for ramp ambulances just a few years ago after a long campaign. The street lighting is also Ealing PFI installed and maintained.Ealing Highways chief has refused to respond on this as have all ward councillors.Whilst a Hounslow Councillor claims it as a victory. Never mind the costs incurred by volunteers and carers or the 10 mins extra it takes to get patients there, late and missed appointments and the inconvenience to staff and visiting consultants.In the meantime the Lane is now a haven for drug dealing, and far to unsafe for walking along day or night. No-one will hear you scream.It's stupid and reckless and shows how it's all about gestures and egos and far from common sense and understanding the need for practical accessibility to a Hospital that specialises in rehabilitation for those who are least able to get about easily.How those councillors who stayed silent and those who crow about their 'success' sleep at night one will never know. Pleasing their masters is obviously far more important than serving the community.Ealing are now doing overtime on how to divide and rule further whereas Hounslow have decided that they know best and will ignore a majority of reasoning.They are simply using a divide and rule method fooling the residents, while both doing exactly what they want.And it is not just LTNs but most other things they get their mitts on.

Raymond Havelock ● 1474d

AN OPEN LETTER TO PETER MASONDear Peter Mason,THE LTN CONSULTATIONS1. Would you be kind enough to clarify the situation in respect of the Creffield Road South LTN?  Some people seem to think it has been “ditched”.  On the website that I accessed, it is has been reinstated.  The explanation given is that more funds were made available by the Government to allow it to go ahead.  Is it still to go ahead or not?2.The Creffield Road Aouth ConsultationWhen can I expect to see the report on this consultation?  It is now closed.  Nothing the Government can now do can alter the results.  Why the delay?3.  In your pavement address to residents on You Tube, you treated the consultations, not individually, but as a job-lot and discussed them in statistical, for-and-against terms rather than content terms.  There was more information on the website. It claims to provide “detailed summaries of the results of the consultations for each LTN”.  The Creffield Road South Consultation is not even mentioned. Those that are still only reported in for-and-against terms.  These consultations were not put to residents as mere head-counts.  Residents will have taken the trouble to respond with detailed objections.  A consultation report of any professional integrity and honesty gives an account of the objections raised, not in head-count terms and not in summary form.  Summaries have, in my experience in the past, tended to lose the most cogent arguments. An honest report covers all the points made by objectors and RESPONDS to them if the Council wishes to persist in its policy.5. Is the imposition of LTN’s the Council’s – by which I mean YOUR - policy.  It is all very well posing as the helpless victim of government demands and decisions.  In my opinion, that is so  you can claim that the imposition of LTNs is not within your control and avoid the opprobrium that would fall on your head if you went ahead and imposed them despite having promised to bow to public opinion. You do not have to submit to the Government.  And don’t when it suits you.  You were happy enough to oppose Government policy when you engineered the Council’s adoption of the fatuous definition of Islamophobia.  Where is your report on the Creffield Road South consultation and all the others?  The Cabinet is to discuss the matter in September?  How can they consider it if deprived of the consultation reports?You need to publish them now in the professional manner I have described.  The present head-count offerings are insults to the detailed consideration residents may have given the matter.  And why are you procrastinating?  If you wish to go with a head-count approach, the head count demands you cancel the majority of the LTNs now, that is if you were honest when you promised to accede to the decision of the public. The public has spoken.  The Government is irrelevant.  At the heart of this issue is one question:  IS THE NEW LEADER OF EALING COUNCIL A MAN OF HIS WORD WHOM WE CAN TRUST?I look forward to a response to my questions at your earliest convenience. Yours sincerely,Andrew Farmer

Andrew Farmer ● 1482d

Bell and Cos rather insane notion that ealing can be a mini holland overlooks one key fact.Ealing is quite hilly, rising from the Thames and to Hanger Hill Horsenden Hill Greenfords hills  Sudbury Hill Harrow and Hillingdon.It is not really cyclist friendly terrain other than for completion cycling for which a high level of fitness and youth has to be on your side. And a lightweight or suitable machine, invariably very expensive.Using a bike in the Holland method ( and I've Cycled more in Holland and Belgium  than i probably do here is that it is primarily flat but the bikes used are far more utilitarian and suitable for daily work use. It's not the domain of the Lycra head down, go for it culture that is no more representative than supercar or boy racers in motorised vehicles.This is where they have listened and court the wrong element of society. It's pretty apparent with a heavily funded website that the LCC has an agenda that is far from balanced and follows an agenda which is vehemently opposed to any other opinion  even within its membership.Then the LTNs picked were in already quiet areas, where it's always been easy and safe to cycle.The real bug bears, potholes, tree slime, rotted leaves bad markings, ruts and slippy surfaces remain and remain the biggest hindrance to year round easy safe cycling for as many.It's even worse for pavements which are in a right state from decades of minimal basic maintenance.Done properly, LTNs are probably only necessary in a very few places if at all, but as we know from so many things, Govt, Authorities and Councils are tainted with idiots as politicisations and gravy train riders as executives and everything is always half cocked and second rate.

Raymond Havelock ● 1485d

In a way what the funding is for doesn't really matter. The transport department of any council will always have been dependent on bidding for funding to central government for its operation. Pre-Covid Ealing had a much larger Local Implementation Plan but the money for this was taken away by the Department for Transport. It was replaced by the Gilligan inspired funding for these temporary schemes, the theory being was that councils should take the opportunity to introduce cheap but radical changes during the pandemic to take advantage of the drop in traffic levels to encourage active travel. Julian Bell was a true-believer so Ealing bid aggressively for this funding and got one of the highest amounts of any borough in London. As the materials for these schemes was low cost most of the money effectively goes to cover officer time. Even if there was no funding it still would be more expensive to make officers redundant than to keep them on. Therefore, if the government were saying it was only going to give Ealing money to repave the Uxbridge Road with yellow bricks, it would make sense operationally to bid for it. Without the funding the officers still have to be paid and this money would need to come from the council's own resources likely requiring a reduction of services. That is before you take into account the massive revenue boost given by the PCN revenue. Peter Mason gambled that he could extricate the borough from these measures without a punitive response from the government on the perfectly reasonable assumption that, if he could show they were deeply unpopular, the grant funding pipeline would remain open. It appears he is wrong. Unfortunately for him, the chances are that Julian Bell will be highlighting the very dubious looking traffic data commissioned by the council which shows that LTNs are an incredible success to Andrew Gilligan.


Gordon Southwell ● 1485d