Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Petition with “factual errors” to scrap low-traffic neighbourhood launched by a “keen cyclist” after just two months of trial

Almost 2,000 people in Newcastle are calling for the consultation to be “axed immediately”, days after the Government withdrew support for LTNs

A petition started by a “keen cyclist” objecting to the Jesmond low-traffic neighbourhood trials in Newcastle has received almost 2,000 signatures, despite the council stating it is factually incorrect in claiming that there was no pre-consultation, as the UK Government withdrew support for LTNs from its latest active travel funding.

The consultatory scheme was introduced in March to prevent through traffic using filtering measures on a number of residential streets between Osborne Road and Cradlewell in East Jesmond, becoming the fourth area in the city to receive an LTN.

The petition, started by Antony Baird of Jesmond Vale, who describes himself as a “keen cyclist” alleged that the LTN had impeded emergency services, was “damaging livelihoods and businesses”, and had increased traffic on surrounding streets, according to Chronicle Live.

Baird wrote on the petition: “Newcastle City Council failed to conduct an adequate public consultation prior to the installation of the East Jesmond LTN. They failed to engage and consult with a representative cross section of residents and businesses within the East Jesmond LTN boundary. They failed to engage with residents, business and other stake holders on the periphery of the scheme and other affected organisations across the city.

“We demand that the Council commits to conducting a thorough, transparent and unbiased public consultation on their plans prior to the implementation of the proposed scheme.”

LTN in East Jesmond, Newcastle (Newcastle City Council)

LTN in East Jesmond, Newcastle

However, Newcastle City Council has pointed that there was indeed a pre-consultation period from 7 to 19 February in which all the road closures received more than 50 per cent agreements in the responses, before the 18-month trial scheme started in March. The public consultation will run until September to help decide whether it becomes permanent or not.

> LTNs and 15-minute cities accused of being led by cycling lobbies, official review called a “whitewash”

Jane Byrne, the council’s cabinet member for transport, said: “The petition has many factual errors, so it is important to point out the following. Before the scheme was implemented, we asked people and businesses to tell us their views, as part of a pre-consultation period, with 3,500 leaflets delivered in the local area.

“The formal public consultation is running now, as required by the legal orders, which runs from when the scheme is implemented. Emergency services were consulted throughout the development of this scheme, and we have worked together to ensure emergency access is available at all times.”

She added: “Furthermore, this is a consultation, not a referendum, and we’re listening to a wide range of voices. We’re now half-way through the trial and we are continuing to review the feedback as well as looking at the impact of traffic on local streets and other data we have collected, which we will share with residents soon.

“Neighbourhoods should be somewhere you can get to, but not be used as a through route, which is what the scheme provides. All businesses and properties are still accessible by car.

“Reducing traffic on local streets not only makes the area safer, but encourages more people to walk, wheel and cycle on local journeys, which is good for the environment, as well as improving health and wellbeing.”

The petition signatories have left comments citing several reasons for signing the form, including the age-old “dividing our community”, the conspiracy theory now gaining-traction that “LTNs are a form of implementing communism”, and that “LTNs are responsible for greenwashing”. Someone also wrote: “Birds are cameras”.

> Why is the 15-minute city attracting so many conspiracy theories? Plus access for disabled cyclists in the latest episode of the road.cc Podcast

Transport journalist Carlton Reid, who is a Jesmond resident himself and frequently documents the quieter and less congested streets in the area after the LTN trials, argued that the tone of the comments was set by the petition starter “who probably hasn’t read the council’s long-term transport plan and why removing motor traffic is essential to keep the city moving in the future”.

The backlash against the Jesmond LTNs has come just days after the Department for Transport (DfT) and Active Travel England announced over 265 schemes in 60 areas with a £200 million funding to improve walking and cycling conditions across the country.

However, it was revealed that LTNs are not to be a part of any of these schemes.

“The winning projects have demonstrated they provide people with attractive choices to use cycling and walking for local journeys, and do not include any low traffic neighbourhood schemes. Local authorities have worked closely with local people to ensure the schemes benefit the community as a whole,” read the announcement from the Government.

road.cc reached out to DfT to elaborate on the decision, to which it replied: “Our £200 million investment will provide attractive choices for people to use cycling and walking for local journeys and do not include low traffic neighbourhoods.

“Each bid received for this round of funding went through a robust assessment process, with schemes marked against a range of criteria. Active Travel England will provide feedback to authorities with unsuccessful bids. Funding decisions for authorities were not influenced by the types of scheme proposed, they were taken on the basis of quality, deliverability and value for money.”

> “A backward move” – Government slashes active travel budget for England

Campaigners have lambasted the Conservative government since then. Leo Murray, director of innovation at climate charity Possible, criticised the government’s decision, claiming it was a capitulation to LTN critics and would worsen air quality and increase traffic congestion.

However Jon Burke, former transport lead at Hackney Borough Council responsible for installing several LTNs in the area in 2020 said that “this decision should make zero difference to the delivery of new LTNs”.

“There will continue to be local demand for interventions proven to eliminate the rat-running that blights neighbourhoods,” tweeted Burke. “So, irrespective of Active Travel England’s decision not to fund new LTNs— under pressure from a dying Gov’t —local demands to address rat-running aren’t going anywhere and neither are their proven, cost-effective solutions.”

Adwitiya joined road.cc in 2023 as a news writer after graduating with a masters in journalism from Cardiff University. His dissertation focused on active travel, which soon threw him into the deep end of covering everything related to the two-wheeled tool, and now cycling is as big a part of his life as guitars and football. He has previously covered local and national politics for Voice Wales, and also likes to writes about science, tech and the environment, if he can find the time. Living right next to the Taff trail in the Welsh capital, you can find him trying to tackle the brutal climbs in the valleys.

Add new comment

24 comments

Avatar
brooksby | 10 months ago
6 likes

A "keen cyclist", you say...? Hmm... 

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to brooksby | 10 months ago
5 likes
brooksby wrote:

A "keen cyclist", you say...? Hmm... 

As we said to the 20 stone councillor who claimed to be a cyclist "last time you rode a bike it had stabilisers."

Avatar
Cocovelo | 10 months ago
10 likes

This used to be my commute to work. It was horrible with cars parked on one or both sides of the streets so any moving traffic had to squeeze down the middle. And surprise surprise if you were on a bike then often you'd lose the game of chicken with the drivists who would squeeze through (at speed) regardless of whether or not someone on a bike was already there. This is exactly the sort of area that needs LTNs.

Avatar
NickSprink | 10 months ago
0 likes

It amazes me that so many people are up in arms over the "communism" of LTNs, but not bothered by the real communist take overs (creeping re-nationalisation of our utility companies, forcing Whatsapp to spy on us...)

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to NickSprink | 10 months ago
8 likes
NickSprink wrote:

It amazes me that so many people are up in arms over the "communism" of LTNs, but not bothered by the real communist take overs (creeping re-nationalisation of our utility companies, forcing Whatsapp to spy on us...)

Which utility companies have we nationalised now?

I don't understand what Whatsapp has to do with anything - they're owned by Meta (nee FaceBook) so that's about as far from communism as possible. I certainly don't see Zuckerberg as some hero of the workers.

Avatar
Jetmans Dad replied to hawkinspeter | 10 months ago
9 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:

Which utility companies have we nationalised now?

One of the rail company franchises (Tranpennine Express?) has been put under the control of a public body after the private company proved itself incapable of providing an adequate level of public service. 

Sounds like a good thing to me. 

Avatar
eburtthebike replied to Jetmans Dad | 10 months ago
8 likes
Jetmans Dad wrote:

One of the rail company franchises (Tranpennine Express?) has been put under the control of a public body after the private company proved itself incapable of providing an adequate level of public service. 

Sounds like a good thing to me. 

Wasn't there another one a few years ago?  Upon re-nationalisation, service improved dramatically.

Avatar
NickSprink replied to hawkinspeter | 10 months ago
0 likes

For utility companies, there is no longer any competition.  We are back where we started 40 years ago: half a dozen companies all charging us the same price.  Due to the energy price guarantee they all owe the government a fortune, so they can now pull the plug if they want.  

For Whatsapp (and all other messaging providers) the online safety bill currently in parliament is set to require them read all our messages.  

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to NickSprink | 10 months ago
6 likes
NickSprink wrote:

For utility companies, there is no longer any competition.  We are back where we started 40 years ago: half a dozen companies all charging us the same price.  Due to the energy price guarantee they all owe the government a fortune, so they can now pull the plug if they want.  

For Whatsapp (and all other messaging providers) the online safety bill currently in parliament is set to require them read all our messages.  

The word you're looking for with the utility companies is "monopoly" which is not the same as communism, though you can have a state monopoly under communism, so that might be why you got confused. (As an aside, often the end-goal of companies under capitalism is for them to gain a monopoly as then they can totally abuse the markets. This generally has to be controlled by legislation).

With the government wanting to read all our messages, the word you are looking for is "authoritarianism" which again, is not the same as communism, but orthogonal. There's plenty of examples of left and right wing authoritarian societies and you can also get left and right wing libertarian societies.

Avatar
brooksby replied to hawkinspeter | 10 months ago
5 likes
hawkinspeter wrote:

The word you're looking for with the utility companies is "monopoly"

Exactly - just try and change your water supplier to a different company.  Or, for that matter, try and travel on a different rail company between - say - Bristol and Bath.  They privatised monopoly services - they changed the ownership of them but there's no actual competition (which is supposed to be the great advantage of 'free market capitalism' - remember how competition would bring prices down...?).

Quote:

(As an aside, often the end-goal of companies under capitalism is for them to gain a monopoly as then they can totally abuse the markets. This generally has to be controlled by legislation).

Unfortunately, given the conflicts of interest between much of our govt and the financiers of many larger companies, they aren't in any great hurry to rein them in...

Avatar
Hirsute replied to brooksby | 10 months ago
0 likes

You can only change water supplier if you are a business.
Do not choose Wave.

[insert rant about our facist, authoritarian government]

Avatar
Car Delenda Est replied to brooksby | 10 months ago
2 likes

It's almost like privatising the railroads makes as much sense as trying to privatise the roads, or emergency services..

Avatar
jaymack replied to NickSprink | 10 months ago
5 likes

WhatsApp's always spied on
it's users, that's how Meta/Facebook monetise the users. Nothing to do with Communism and everything to do with late stage Capitalism. Users allow themselves to be surveilled, you carry big brother's younger sibling around with you in your pocket. WhatsApp's location function can even be turned on remotely by your service provider, why anyone would want to use it is beyond me.

Avatar
HoarseMann | 10 months ago
1 like

A much better article, extolling the virtues of an Osborne Ave. closed to through traffic...

https://www.thecourieronline.co.uk/in-defense-of-jesmonds-low-traffic-ne...

Avatar
IanMK | 10 months ago
7 likes

Yesterday's news about the man that drove in to the Downing Street gates. My reaction "idiot anti LTNer" 😉

Avatar
Fignon's ghost | 10 months ago
9 likes

LTN'S ROCK.

IGNORE THE IGNORANTS.

Avatar
eburtthebike | 10 months ago
4 likes

That petition is pretty much the same as the idiotic article in Private Eye, in the Rotten Boroughs section.  I'm assuming it came first and the PE hack just lifted the lies without doing the most cursory fact-checking: not a good look for a publication which makes so much out of exposing others failures to be accurate and truthful.

Avatar
billymansell | 10 months ago
7 likes

Just one correction. The,"Almost 2,000 people in Newcastle" is nearer 1,700 with quite a number not living in Jesmond Vale, Newcastle or even the country.

https://twitter.com/lastnotlost/status/1660421137770115073

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to billymansell | 10 months ago
6 likes

But apparently it's communism - or actually more like fascism, or it "doesn't work", or it's not needed as side roads are fine as they are, or it'll just increase pollution, or it's only good for rich people, or power-crazed extremists, or ableists who want to deny those with disabilities their rights, or you say close one road but we know you will close all the roads, or it's just childish, or me and my friends don't want it so everybody's against it, or it will stop ambulances and productivity will nosedive and it's all a scheme to trash the country to prove that Brexit was a bad idea.

...is a partial summary of what people posting on the internet say.  Maybe the internet has some flaws as communication tool sometimes?

Meanwhile at a similar lattitude...

Or somewhere with a similar population (to Newcastle).

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to chrisonabike | 10 months ago
4 likes
chrisonatrike wrote:

But apparently it's communism - or actually more like fascism, or it "doesn't work", or it's not needed as side roads are fine as they are, or it'll just increase pollution, or it's only good for rich people, or power-crazed extremists, or ableists who want to deny those with disabilities their rights, or you say close one road but we know you will close all the roads, or it's just childish, or me and my friends don't want it so everybody's against it, or it will stop ambulances and productivity will nosedive and it's all a scheme to trash the country to prove that Brexit was a bad idea.

...is a partial summary of what people posting on the internet say.  Maybe the internet has some flaws as communication tool sometimes?

Meanwhile at a similar lattitude...

Or somewhere with a similar population (to Newcastle).

As everyone knows, communism leads to birdsong, clean air and increased safety for everyone.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to hawkinspeter | 10 months ago
3 likes

I thought it was pirates we needed though, to help counter global warming?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to chrisonabike | 10 months ago
2 likes
chrisonatrike wrote:

I thought it was pirates we needed though, to help counter global warming? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Why not both?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertatia

Avatar
TheBillder replied to chrisonabike | 10 months ago
2 likes
chrisonatrike wrote:

I thought it was pirates we needed though, to help counter global warming?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Isn't it pilates?

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to TheBillder | 10 months ago
6 likes
TheBillder wrote:
chrisonatrike wrote:

I thought it was pirates we needed though, to help counter global warming?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

Isn't it pilates?

That's a bit of a stretch.

Latest Comments