At last, we have a decent poll conducted in relation to a specific LTN – but it seems to have received surprisingly little attention. Might that be because it doesn’t feed the narrative of the pro-LTN forces? /.1

The data supports the extent to which this issue is divisive, a reality borne out by all experience, but denied by those who unequivocally support LTNs and who seek to reductively minimise, pigeonhole and delegitimise concerns. /.2

Outside the boundaries of an LTN, the data shows a very strong majority in opposition, but also a fair amount of support. Within the boundaries there is comfortable, but less strong, majority support and also significant opposition. /.3

The significance and implication of this is recognised in the commentary: /.4

There’s plenty of scope for engagement. In #BowesLTN it’s @BBvoice4all & there are similar groups in any LTN e.g. @onelewisham @visitcamberwell @onelambeth They reflect widely held views in their communities, they’re open and constructive, they want fair & effective action. /.5

Instead of engagement, they’re labelled as liars & thugs. When a (rightly condemned) idiot daubs graffiti on a sign or a camera is vandalised, everyone with concerns is damned by association –a ruthless, unpleasant and dishonest tactic that exacerbates & entrenches division. /.6

And how have advocates responded to the poll? Sadly, (but not unexpectedly) so far they’ve ignored all but the evidence of majority support from those who live in LTNs and extrapolated this into the assertion that the answer is more LTNS (for all). /.7

They know this can’t happen (many residential roads can’t be filtered & including all the worst affected RMRs).
It won’t happen for other reasons too- a key one being that many supporters within an LTN still require/expect/value their own driving access outside the boundary./.8

They know it wouldn't really be desirable either, because above all they continue to avoid the indisputable negative impact of displacement that has to hit somewhere, regardless of the extent of ‘evaporation’ that could occur. /.9

It’s certainly not the case that they are unaware of the report – they’ve selectively extracted this diagram and shared it widely and repeatedly (despite its obvious flaws, inexplicable conflation of cycling & walking, the inconsistency and the contradictory evidence). /.10

And they seem intent on maintaining the pretence of majority support. This week it’s via a Greenpeace video, which from outset seems ignorant of the number of residences on the roads that are deemed fit for congestion (even when they’re clearly in shot). /.11

& then it goes on to cite the same old polls that either don’t relate to LTNs at all, or do so only in general, and the same old impact studies that either study LTNs but not all of their impact, or study the impact of travel schemes that aren’t LTNs. /.12

It is hard not to think this is all calculated, as the true scale of opposition to LTNs becomes clear. How else to explain Julian Bell following Jon Burke in moving away from previous assurances re: consultation by asserting preparedness to ignore majority opposition? /.13

We need more polls (see caveats of this one below) and the more consultation the better. But most of all we need honesty, trust and open-mindedness to enable engagement and adaptability, and foster collective efforts to solve shared problems. /.14

These are difficult times and evidence in favour of the importance of brave, honest and intelligent leadership that quickly adapts to changing circumstances has never been stronger. /.15/15

[Just to note some obvious caveats of the poll:
-Representativeness of sample not clear.
-Unrepresentative timing - conducted July to September and in early phase of LTN
-Based on one LTN when all differ and much depends on location and design]