I’m not angry. I just understand the anger of people who are on the sharp end of this council policy.
I wish the council would acknowledge that their policy is harming people’s legitimate interests. They might have been able to avoid conflict if they’d just thought things through and communicated better.
I wish people got as angry about illegal use of spray paint to damage public property as they do about its lawful use to paint murals!
London isn’t one of the most densely populated cities in the world.
A lazy Google search does list London in various rankings for city density e.g. at number 43 in this list from USA Today, noting that the first European city in that list looks to be Athens, Greece at number 40.
Next up the list is Madrid, another European capital.
The density of Madrid and London are somewhat similar, but in terms of square miles, London is much larger.
I think it’s this combination of density and sprawling scale that makes transport such a problem for London, though all cities have their challenges.
Either way, the government message is still to avoid public transport if possible, so alternatives are needed. Unfortunately I think the road closures are arbitrary and costly for what they achieve - I would prefer to see the money spent on directly addressing the issue of safe travel on public transport e.g. by increasing the number of buses and frequently deep cleaning as much as possible and remodelling passenger flows in tube stations where possible.
The government indicated there is a further £20m to be allocated between London Boroughs & TfL for phase 2 of this ‘emergency’ active travel fund (phase 1 was just £5m), so I guess there is much more to come.
Arterial roads are by definition ‘high capacity urban roads’. I think anyone would struggle to define Silverdale Road as such, for example. With all the parked cars it’s barely wide enough for 2 cars to pass in some places. I don’t think it’s an ‘arbitrary’ choice.
the council merely pushes traffic onto other roads.
The council is trying to encourage behavioural changes. Better to walk or cycle 2-3 miles rather than drive as opposed to pushing traffic onto other roads. The idea is to make you think ‘did I really need to drive there’. It’s like smoking campaigns or wearing seatbelts. People generally don’t make healthy choices and sometimes they need a nudge.
Edit: just to add, I’m not anti car by any means - I’m a big car nut, but I just don’t drive unless I have to.
It’s arbitrary because the system and reasons for choosing certain road closures over other suggestions has not been published or explained.
While the intentions maybe good, the survey for the Silverdale/Bishopsthorpe modal filter showed that the majority of respondents didn’t respond positively with the question "How effective do you feel this scheme is in helping you socially distance and walk or cycle more?”. The average response way 39.7, with 0 being strongly disagree and 50 being neutral.
Perhaps they should try something else?
In case anyone is interested, I found this PDF plan of the scheme online which shows it was drawn out in April and approved in May. I’m not sure all the closure signs are actually in place as there wasn’t one further up Silverdale before Dacres Road last time I cycled up there. I will check again later.
A lot of closure signs exist, except they chose to use yellow words instead of the international no through road sign. They often don’t put in the no entry sign.
The yellow signs are for information and I guess to some extent the closures are ‘temporary’. I don’t think a ‘no entry’ sign is appropriate as you can drive right up to the barrier/planters if you need residential access or for deliveries etc.
No, but John mentions a no through road sign like one of these, which would be right:
If you find out anything about the decision-making process, please let us know. As far as I know, the Council is still refusing to share this.
The no entry sign I meant on the actual barrier. Though on second thoughts it should probably be the no motor vehicle sign
No motor vehicle, or no cars? The difference being are motorcycles allowed?
Reading some of the commonplace comments, I did note that one suggested that these modal filters provide the perfect escape routes for the moped mafia if being pursued by a police car. So maybe a no-bandits sign too? 
Also of note is that the street plans don’t contain measurements or comment on the width of the pavements each side of the ‘filters’. Perhaps that wasn’t in the draftsman’s brief, but given events I think that was a foreseeable an oversight.
Yes, if the decisions were somehow explained, and even supported by some data and cost / benefit analysis vs different schemes or options, I think it would be easier to be supportive of the difficult choices.
However, Councillor Gibbons recently tweeted:
Really proud of my colleagues @JamesARathbone and @OctaviaLewisham sticking to their guns in the face of fierce resistance from a noisy minority.#HealthyStreets
While Councillor Rathbone follows up with:
Listening to people and doing what they want aren’t the same thing Lizzie.
I don’t think we will get much explanation any time soon…
Motorcycles shouldn’t be allowed if the idea is to create safe ways for pedestrian and cycles
James RATHBONE Leyland Road - yup inside the area
Leo GIBBONS Lowther Hill - can’t see anything happening outside his house
A little suspicious that 2 of the people voting for this personally benefit
I’ve seen this mentioned a few times - it would appear that it is possible to research this from publicly available council data.
Yes he does
While in the public domain I’m not sure we should encourage the exact address of anyone to be published on an open forum. It would be easy to do this if any forum member. We don’t.
@starman I was in two minds about whether I should or not. I decided it was probably appropriate because 1) I was quoting freely available public record 2)these are public servants - by choice 3)any suggestion of impropriety should be immediately clear (pretty much the reason Trump’s tax returns are argued)