Forum Topic

After reading up on some of the other LTN threads on this forum I am not sure why I bother writing on here.  A couple ill mannered are amplifying their preexisting view instead of actually discussing facts and putting informed positions across for others to consider.  I for one would love to have listened, but calling people names or accusing me of not being a real resident (a bot I think someone suggested) seems juvenile to me.What is odd, on this forum, is that no one seems to be supporting ltn25 even after, what they indicated was, their main issue with ltn25 had been resolved, for example the access for emergency vehicles and people with reduced mobility.  I don’t think it helps to name anyone on here, but can I make the observation that a few that discussed this last year, seem still to be very much continuing their opposition.  I was keen to see the data before I put forward my points to this discussion; for ltn25 I note:No material change in traffic to churchfield road, many on here were afraid of this and predicted the end of churchfield.quite a drastic increase in traffic on horn lane though, which should not be ignored.Drastic reduction in traffic in poets’ corner, but much less than the increase on horn lane.  But we are only seeing a snipped of the data here so unable to draw any conclusions.Air quality for the area improved, this is excellent.  Would be good to see the basis of analysis and the areas covered (and how the increased horn lane traffic has impacted air quality)!No data on road safety, but I note from some other threads on here that there has been a decrease, not seen data though.1,150 local people responded and 900 of them did not agree with ltn25.  Out of how many in total, 82% of residents is misleading. The percentages are somewhat irrelevant as a silent majority (I presume) did not vote and there are comments on another thread about being able to vote twice.  But everyone had a vote (or the ability to vote several times) so the overwhelming majority for removing ltn25 must be considered.There appears to be a mis-perception of increased traffic on spencer rd, something the data shows is simply not true. In fact, drastically reduced traffic numbers were observed.24% thought air quality was the main issue, great news for us in that category then that the air quality has improved with ltn25 (but more info is needed I’d think).In conclusion;The horn lane increase in traffic was not predicted by the case study.  I know so many ‘smart’ people on here predicted this increase, but consider the Spencer road example - we need to deal on facts and not perceptions.!  This is simplifying this, but the increase on horn lane is much larger than the decrease in traffic through poets corner.  Ie more traffic through horn lane than appear to have been displaced by ltn25.  there are obviously other factors that need consideration wrt the horn lane traffic increase.On a balance, and based on the data, I think I support ltn25 staying, but the increase on horn lane is troubling and I can see how it should be a key consideration in the decision.  It does need further analysis, but I must note that Horn lane is a B-road and, as a result of ltn25, (appear to be) taking through-traffic away from residential roads, which has to be a good thing overall, just consider safety (side walks and crossings are designed differently for B-roads than, say, spencer). But, fair play, it seems that the ‘informed’ many have cast their votes and we will have to accept and live with the consequences of what the elected representatives do with that.  A bit like brexit really, let’s just hope the next steps are based on facts rather than feelings and perceptions.But even if ltn25 disappear and we return to rat running through poets’ corner, worse air, more vehicle/pedestrian accidents.  I am going to try and stick to my new habits that ltn25 ‘forced’ on me (eg walking and cycling much much more).  That is a positive impact of ltn25, I trust that we can all agree on.

Ossian Olsén ● 1449d

AN OPEN LETTER 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 South 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 ● 1453d