Transport Secretary Mark Harper has suggested local authorities review “controversial” or unpopular low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs), and blamed the active travel schemes for “banning” cars, “making it difficult for motorists” and setting “people against each other”.
Speaking to The Telegraph and expressing his belief in “giving people more choice on how to travel”, Harper addressed his government’s move to halt funding for new LTNs, adding that the government had to stop backing policies “that are about… banning cars or making it difficult for motorists”.
As Transport Secretary, and a Conservative, I believe in giving people more choice on how to travel, not banning cars from places.
That’s why I’ve stopped funding for any new LTNs.
? Read all about it – and more – in today’s Sunday @Telegraph ?https://t.co/E0471zfatv
— Mark Harper (@Mark_J_Harper) July 9, 2023
Repeating the often heard criticism that some schemes were introduced without consultation and are not supported by locals, Harper suggested councils “ought to reflect” on their status.
“A number of them were implemented during the pandemic and there was, because of that, a lack of consultation,” he said. “So I certainly think local authorities ought to reflect on whether the schemes that they implemented actually do have public support in their areas.
“Ultimately, it’s not the government’s job to micromanage every single local area — that’s for local authorities to decide. For local authorities who have got schemes that weren’t popular, were very controversial and aren’t very well supported, then it would probably be wise for them to look at them again.
“The schemes that we have supported with money from the department are schemes that are about improving choices, not schemes that are about banning cars or making it difficult for motorists.”
Harper also said he found it “unhelpful” that reaction to LTNs has helped “create people who don’t like cycling and walking”.
“One of the things that struck me with some of the ways those schemes were delivered, is that they then set up a group of people that were then opposed to cycling and walking,” he continued.
“It seems to me that that’s a slightly weird state of affairs, if you end up doing it in a way that you actually create people who don’t like cycling and walking. Setting up different groups of people against each other is a very unhelpful thing to do.”
Vocal, sometimes violent, opposition to the schemes has been seen across the United Kingdom, active travel campaigners in Oxford releasing footage of anti-LTN vandals setting bollards alight at the peak of a string of vandalism which had seen bollards being rammed and melted.
> Firefighters delayed by low-traffic neighbourhood… because vandalised bollard wouldn’t unlock
Back in March, in Rochdale too, an LTN planter was set alight and overturned on the first day of a trial beginning, while last summer, in Sheffield, a councillor called for “tougher measures” after repeat vandalism.
In May, it was revealed that a petition started by a “keen cyclist” objecting to the Jesmond low-traffic neighbourhood trials in Newcastle had received almost 2,000 signatures, despite the council stating it is factually incorrect in claiming that there was no pre-consultation.
49 thoughts on “Transport Secretary calls for LTN review, blames “controversial” schemes for setting “people against each other””
Everyone take note – if a
Everyone take note – if a number of people cry loud enough, the government will act.
Cyclists clearly haven’t been crying loud enough over the unsafe roads we’re forced to risk every time we attempt to choose cycling as our mode of travel.
cycling people in Berlin,
cycling people in Berlin, where the new conservative government has stopped all cycling improvement schemes, are really good at making themselves seen, through critical mass events etc. I thought at first that these events could be quite easily dismissed as a minority, but seeing lots of children and posters calling for the right to travel safely, is actually quietly powerful
HoldingOn wrote:
STOP DE KINDERMOORD
People complain about suggestions that the deaths in Wimbledon show why we need more restrictions on motorists/cars (how dare you abuse this for political purposes).
Yet the country with by far the most success on promoting cycling did it EXPLICITLY by protesting such deaths heavily…
It seems that since the
It seems that since the Tories realised they have no chance of re-election they’ve become more extreme. Presumably they hope the conspiracy theorists will keep them alive over winter.
We just need to wait till the
We just need to wait till the general election when they’ll all be booted out of office.
Miller wrote:
Be careful what you wish for. Does anyone think Starmer will be better? The most we could hope for is that he will be not quite so bad.
The problem with this “I
The problem with this “I believe in freedom to choose how to travel so won’t restrict cars” is that every time you facilitate cars, you restrict other forms of transport. So you, and the motorists, are not giving other people the freedom to choose how to travel.
Steve K wrote:
The problem is that due to the size of cars, drivers are wanting virtually all of the available public space to be made available to them and any re-allocation of it is seen as a restriction. As you state, it’s the cars that are restricting other forms of transport.
And the only way that most
And the only way that most people can even be ‘encouraged’ to try modes of transport other than just getting in the car, is to make it “difficult” for motorists. If you don’t make it difficult or less convenient, why would they bother?
Quick show of hands: who thinks that Mr Harper has ridden a bike anywhere other than a Center Parcs since the age of twelve?
brooksby wrote:
What seems odd to me is that there’s invariably lots of engagement with local people when LTNs are proposed, but I’ve never been asked to contribute opinions about new roads. It’s almost as though some politicians are trying to use “democratic process” to stifle LTNs and promote roads for purely motorised traffic.
Thats because as you say, it
Thats because as you say, it is a restriction. We have a small country that is very built up in small condensed areas and there simply isn’t enough room for proper cycling infrastructure and good car access so building one takes away from the other.
Problem is, 90% or more of people couldn’t give a flying fuck about bikes and just see them as a nuisance. They will see a cyclist holding up traffic and whinge and then unironically sit there for 10 minutes in gridlock without a second thought to the irony.
mctrials23 wrote:
It’s not so much to do with being a small country though. The U.S. has huge amounts of space, but almost all of that space is allocated to motorised traffic. The problem is that as you allocate more space to cars, then facilities tend to be spread further apart which then requires even more space. It’s the “one more lane” fallacy coupled with induced demand.
Bicycle infrastructure doesn’t suffer from the same problem as it’s so much more compact and cyclists can be far more flexible about how much space they require.
Our streets are too narrow –
Our streets are too narrow – we’ve got tiny mediaeval streets just not built for cycling. And we’ve got a really high population density in a small country. And unlike other places we’ve got lots of people who own cars here, and we have to travel further [1] [2].
My city (Edinburgh) is not particularly different from much of the UK (OK, we’re at the start of the beginning with active travel, maybe). One thing I noticed over the last few years though. There’s have been a lot of works which have completely blocked lanes or entire roads and some of these have been in place for time – weeks, months or (Leith Walk) off and on for years. Some of these are “major distributor routes”.
Are people dying because they’re trapped in their houses? Have the council been hunted down by hard-pressed SUV-equipped drivers?
No. The world hasn’t ended.
I suspect even in the UK a local authority with enough chuzpah* could find a whole bunch of space in almost every place by some smart choices at the network level. Which could be implemented quick and cheap with just concrete blocks, bollards, paint and signs. (Unlike the usual rubbish they’d have to make it actually block drivers though).
See for example what Amsterdam has done and is planning with “home networks” for different modes – hoofdnetten and plusnetten.
* No shortage of individuals at the top of L.A.s with that. Sadly often seems … misapplied. For evidence read e.g. Private Eye and get depressed.
Simply no room… (sorry,
Simply no room… (sorry, this one again)
Thats because as you say, it is a restriction. We have a small country that is very built up in small condensed areas and there simply isn’t enough room for proper cycling infrastructure and good car access so building one takes away from the other.
Problem is, 90% or more of people couldn’t give a flying fuck about bikes and just see them as a nuisance. They will see a cyclist holding up traffic and whinge and then unironically sit there for 10 minutes in gridlock without a second thought to the irony. — mctrials23
Keep posting it, it’s a
Keep posting it, it’s a beauty.
That’s the sort of thing I
That’s the sort of thing I argued in the local rag.
I was told I was micromanaging people by supporting active travel.
When I pointed out their decision to do nothing and allow pollution, congestion, health issues was also micromanaging, I got no reply.
Not the only situation I’ve found where people believe that doing nothing is not a decision.
Standard – opportunity cost.
Standard – opportunity cost. “We are where we are”. Well, yes… but we weren’t always here. Nor will we be.
We are only where we are because of some choices. Even if those were just “do nothing”. And in the case of motor vehicles it isn’t true that “it just happened because everyone bought them”. There were very active political choices, lobbying and resources devoted to bringing this about.
For the future – is it OK to continue on the current path?
If not, then that will mean … change? And that won’t happen by itself, or by doing just a little bit more – otherwise it already would have.
We’ve been “encouraging active travel” ineffectively for decades now.
But nobody is being
But nobody is being restricted in choosing to travel by car if they want. They are only being restricted in their choice of route. If those that believe that this is a restriction of their fundamental rights then I would like to think they also support the Right to Roam – although I suspect they won’t.
IanMK wrote:
In a discussion on a different website, I literally had someone tell me that the right to drive whenever and wherever you want was a human right.
Haha. Is he referring to the
Haha. Is he referring to the Freedom of Movement? I don’t think that defines a route only a destination.
Let’s hope he didn’t vote Brexit
He didn’t. On many issues he
He didn’t. On many issues he’s quite progressive – but not when it comes to getting in the way of his car (or motorbike).
Sounds like you’ve found
Sounds like you’ve found Martin’s new haunt.
So, this guy thinks that if a local authority restricts a narrow lane to pedestrian traffic only (banning cars), they’re violating his basic human rights? If a farmer prevents him from driving through his fields to get somewhere (not specifically illegal – I drive through my fields all the time, they’re just not public rights of way), the farmer is violating his basic human rights?
I swear, some people honestly seem to crap their brains out as soon as they get behind the wheel.
Quote:
It seems to me that if that’s what they really believe, then the Govt does seem to get involved in an awful lot of stuff happening at local area level. “Micromanaging” it, one might say…
The simple answer is that the
The simple answer is that the Govt is now in possession of another ignorant f*ckwit as Transport Minister – the new Grant Shapps.
Or alternatively, a total cynic.
This is about how much more
This is about how much more damage/placating the right wing headbangers this govt can do before they are shown the door on election night. Then, the finger of blame can be pointed at a new govt who will have even more to fix due to their predecessors conscious incompetence.
I’d say Grant “Four Names”
I’d say Grant “Four Names” Shapps is the cynical, slimy one, whereas for true f*ckwittery you have to go back to Chris “Hires a Ferry Company With No Ferries” Grayling.
Yes, it’s like there is a
Yes, it’s like there is a competition to see who can be the worst transport minister, a bit like the competition to see who could be the worst, most unbelievably bad prime minister.
Zelu pots
Zelu pots
This government want to
This government want to portray themselves as moderate in order to keep their core vote onside. They are not. This is just more government gaslighting.
Trying to find workable solutions to the climate crisis, polution, obesity is NOT controversial. To quote Johnson “People want the radical change we are committing to in this strategy (Gear Change), and we politicians shouldn’t be afraid to give it to them”.
Continuing to do nothing to avert climate disaster IS a controversial policy just ask the UN or any climate scientist. Continuing to have pollution levels above the minimum legal level is Controversial. Not addressing the health issues that arise from a sedate population – not just obesity but dementia etc etc – is controversial.
Tory writes Tory-appealing
Tory writes Tory-appealing piece about popular Tory obsession and key Tory front of the Tory-instigated culture war in Tory rag for an audience of Tories. News at 11.
Another Tory cock; they know
Another Tory cock; they know they are losing the next election so they will **** up as much as they can in the next 18 months to make the next Government’s job impossible. It is the classic scorched earth policy.
The creation of LTNs doesn’t
The creation of LTNs doesn’t “create” people who don’t cycling and walking – it merely threatens their dependence on driving everywhere, and they rail against the “enemy” that narrow minded folk like Mark Harper bring forward (in a way that is completely hypocritical to his own “opinion” of everybody having a choice)
It’s not just the cream that rises to the top…
What exactly is “conservative
What exactly is “conservative” about undoing programs that get people walking and cycling and as a result save the treasury billions of pounds in healthcare costs? Not to mention saving lives? Has no one learned anything from the pandemic of the old and unfit?
Pretty much guaranteed to be
Pretty much guaranteed to be out of government at the next election.
So 10 months where they can mess up infrastructure funding massively leaving a huge mess for the next government (an opposition party) to have to try and fix;
Something they will completely blaim on said government…
The one that concerns me is
The one that concerns me is ticket offices.
Directly discriminating against people with a disability.
mattw wrote:
I have so many concerns about this government I wouldn’t know where to start.
OldRidgeback wrote:
I’d start with them ignoring all the tangible Brexit benefits that they fought so hard for
Our local Tory controlled
Our local Tory controlled council has a leader and transport portfolio holder who has described cyclists as dinosaurs…. not only this but they refuse to stop our few cycle lanes being used as carparks. I have suggested that the local walking/cycling czar deal with it, he has ignored me and conveniently won’t be at a cycle related event in town tomorrow where I am a guest , along with a very famous cycling celeb as well as the mayor… ducking out last minute ffs ..
Stevearafprice wrote:
Why does he think cyclists are dinosaurs?
Surely we’re the speedy little mammals that adapted and survived when the big honking dinosaurs all died out?
brooksby wrote:
Because they are roarsome. Especially the the Spinosaurous.
The fact that the Transport
The fact that the Transport Secretary has called for this calls into question his fitness for the role. He either doesn’t under stand the UK Government’s own policies with regard to improving sustainability or is lying. Either way, his comments show he shouldn’t be in that job.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Why not both?
He’s got to be trolling us!
He’s got to be trolling us!
…it’s not the government’s job to micromanage…— Mark Harper per the Telegraph
Even though he’s effectively “suggesting” things to the councils.
We are where we are because all many in our previous governments back over the decades have ulimately managed vigorously for motoring and the private car at the expense of a lot else.
He is trolling! There’s a missing “unless you’re doing it to keep your party afloat” on the end of the sentence at least.
I’m sure the next set of lizards – if that happens in a couple of years – will also not be slow to exploit divisions and express caution about “encouraging” cycling too.
Also – given where we are
Also – given where we are with driving and given the giant monies spent (and indeed effective subsidy for private driving from general taxation) there’s no way you’re “offering choice” by encouraging the status quo.
What works – for choice – involves a change of priorities. Because driving is a space-inefficient transport mode which suppresses the demand (or even willingness to use) other modes.
I suppose its one of those
I suppose its one of those ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ type things, isn’t it?
Once upon a time motor cars were very rare and only owned by the wealthy and made no great impact upon the wider world (you just had a handful of Mr Toads speeding around, but so long as you kept out of their way the world just carried on). As motor cars became cheaper and more accessible, and anyone could buy one, their impact upon the wider world became greater and greater.
Somewhere in the middle of that period, a decision was made to change the world to fit around the convenience of those people driving motor cars (and, in the USA, to actively change the law to keep pedestrians out of the way of said motor cars).
The whole civic infrastructure has been made favourable to motorists for so long that any attempt to curb their use now looks like The War on the Motorist (TM).
brooksby wrote:
I think in this case it’s less “tragedy of the commons” (it just happened because independent humans). More like the school governors conspiring to sell off the playing fields for motorways. And it just so happens their friends in the construction and motor industries were lobbying them hard and offering them political support and a nice consultancy at the end of it.
As you say humans are far more sensitive to “losing” things than “gaining” them. Changes to people’s routines which they feel have been forced on them are seem as ruining their lives.
If only we could employ our current motor industry salesmen to do the same for active travel. Or even better those who first convinced the public it was their fault for not getting out of the way of the motor vehicles…
brooksby wrote:
In the UK, it was probably defined by the reaction to the Buchanan Report aka Traffic in Towns, 1963. Its predictions of carmaggedon were pretty accurate, if somewhat underplayed.
“giving people more choice on
“giving people more choice on how to travel”
Yes: car, car, SUV, car, car, car or car. Most LTN’s are incredibly popular with the people who live there, so the tories are just saying that they believe in local democracy, unless it’s something they don’t like.
He’s my MP and he’s a complete waste of oxygen. Still hasn’t replied to my email despite meeting him two weeks ago and he looked me in the eyes and guaranteed that every constituent’s email got a reply. Still, I might as well send him another, if only because it’ll feel like I’ve done something.
As tory buffoons go, he’s not in the Boris bracket, but in a packed field, I think he’s in the top ten. When I met him, he was opening a new walk/cycle path, built by volunteers who he praised lavishly. Good to see he’s keeping his hypocrisy rating up.
EDIT: Getting old, only just remembered that this pro-choice Transport Secretary cut funding for the alternatives of cycling and walking by 67% a few months ago!
“Giving people a choice….” by taking it away.
There has to be a better word than hypocrite.
As tory buffoons go, he’s not
As tory buffoons go, he’s not in the Boris bracket, but in a packed field, I think he’s in the top ten
It’s only to be expected of opportunistic Tories ‘with an eye to the main chance’. The race is on now to line up in cringeworthy supplication to business interests who might give an unemployed ex-minister some anti-social job in the near (or as near as possible) future, as long as he or she adheres to True Tory principles with hypocrisy- a policy Harper is clearly committed to