The issue of consultation is an interesting one. I live in Levenshulme and was really surprised when so many people complained about a lack of consultation. It felt like it had been going on for ages, with lots of offline engagement (flyers, meetings) as well as online. But I was interested in the scheme, and connected to people actively supporting it, so my experience is perhaps not universal.
Clearly many people feel like they weren't asked, so something went wrong. I suspect some of this can be explained by people feeling like they weren't listened to because it turned out they were in the minority in opposing the scheme. This has been confirmed by the recent numbers showing pretty overwhelming support. But that doesn't mean there weren't issues.
The process could have been handled much better and I absolutely agree that it's down to the council. There should have been more rigorous analysis of air quality and traffic flows, to create an evidence base that, even if it wouldn't touch the emotional core of the dissent, would show that the scheme is working objectively as well as subjectively (I feel a lot safer letting my kids walk around). I completely understand that this would be expensive, but I don't think you'd have the same situation in Prestwich now if you had a really powerful case study from Levenshulme (and had learned the lessons about communication).
In Levenshulme, even after all the complaints about communication during the consultation, the planters just turned up overnight, weeks before any signage, causing further frustration and mayhem. It didn't give an impression of engagement, clear planning, or frankly, competence.
I think a large part of the problem is the lack of clarity who’s responsible for these schemes. Is it TfGM whose plan it is? The councils? Arup who are apparently building them? Sustrans who are doing the engagement?
It’s unfortunate; after decades of car-centric planning these are a massive step in the right direction. Maybe they’d have been better starting with areas with lower car ownership and engaged councillors?
Thanks for the comment Andy. Very unfortunate and I agree about the lack of clarity - even after researching this for weeks on end, I struggle to understand who actually owns/is driving these schemes: TfGM or the councils. I agree with Tom in that I feel the buck has to stop with the council. Choice of area is an important factor here as you say. So too is the sequence of these programmes. Maybe LTNs would have been more warmly received if they’d been introduced after Burnham’s bus reforms as people would’ve had a viable alternative to cars?
Maybe, maybe not. Remember that the majority of urban car journeys are less than 3 miles, and many are less than a mile. People will walk or cycle these if they feel safe doing so (evidence repeatedly shows that ⅔ of drivers would cycle more if they felt the roads were safe enough) - and walking or cycling is cheaper than buses even with incoming reforms.
I think it’s important to see LTNs (and cycle lanes on main roads) not as being anti-car, but as a rebalancing from planning based on the convenience of drivers at the expense of all else.
Tom, thanks for your insights and taking the time to read the piece. Really refreshing to hear such empathetic comments. I totally agree with you about communicating evidence and Levenshulme being so important in terms of its knock-on effects on other GM LTNs.
It’s interesting that Bury Council were disappointed with the outreach that Sustrans performed on Prestwich. They also performed consultation on Walton Road in Trafford and a colleague who lives on that road reported back that his interviewer that day to collect his opinion wrote down not one word that criticised the scheme design, layout or proposed traffic flow alternatives for residents and emergency vehicles.
Then again, surely it’s not rocket science not to employ a group intent on putting in the scheme to take charge of public engagement. It’s hardly going to win doubters over or install confidence that the residents views were being listened to. Hopefully Trafford come to the same conclusion as Bury.
..and as a follow up, the Walton Road scheme's been rejected by Trafford. Seems there was a backlash against Sustrans and TfGM trying to force the programme through. Who'd have thought it?
The issue of consultation is an interesting one. I live in Levenshulme and was really surprised when so many people complained about a lack of consultation. It felt like it had been going on for ages, with lots of offline engagement (flyers, meetings) as well as online. But I was interested in the scheme, and connected to people actively supporting it, so my experience is perhaps not universal.
Clearly many people feel like they weren't asked, so something went wrong. I suspect some of this can be explained by people feeling like they weren't listened to because it turned out they were in the minority in opposing the scheme. This has been confirmed by the recent numbers showing pretty overwhelming support. But that doesn't mean there weren't issues.
The process could have been handled much better and I absolutely agree that it's down to the council. There should have been more rigorous analysis of air quality and traffic flows, to create an evidence base that, even if it wouldn't touch the emotional core of the dissent, would show that the scheme is working objectively as well as subjectively (I feel a lot safer letting my kids walk around). I completely understand that this would be expensive, but I don't think you'd have the same situation in Prestwich now if you had a really powerful case study from Levenshulme (and had learned the lessons about communication).
In Levenshulme, even after all the complaints about communication during the consultation, the planters just turned up overnight, weeks before any signage, causing further frustration and mayhem. It didn't give an impression of engagement, clear planning, or frankly, competence.
I think a large part of the problem is the lack of clarity who’s responsible for these schemes. Is it TfGM whose plan it is? The councils? Arup who are apparently building them? Sustrans who are doing the engagement?
It’s unfortunate; after decades of car-centric planning these are a massive step in the right direction. Maybe they’d have been better starting with areas with lower car ownership and engaged councillors?
Thanks for the comment Andy. Very unfortunate and I agree about the lack of clarity - even after researching this for weeks on end, I struggle to understand who actually owns/is driving these schemes: TfGM or the councils. I agree with Tom in that I feel the buck has to stop with the council. Choice of area is an important factor here as you say. So too is the sequence of these programmes. Maybe LTNs would have been more warmly received if they’d been introduced after Burnham’s bus reforms as people would’ve had a viable alternative to cars?
Maybe, maybe not. Remember that the majority of urban car journeys are less than 3 miles, and many are less than a mile. People will walk or cycle these if they feel safe doing so (evidence repeatedly shows that ⅔ of drivers would cycle more if they felt the roads were safe enough) - and walking or cycling is cheaper than buses even with incoming reforms.
I think it’s important to see LTNs (and cycle lanes on main roads) not as being anti-car, but as a rebalancing from planning based on the convenience of drivers at the expense of all else.
Tom, thanks for your insights and taking the time to read the piece. Really refreshing to hear such empathetic comments. I totally agree with you about communicating evidence and Levenshulme being so important in terms of its knock-on effects on other GM LTNs.
It’s interesting that Bury Council were disappointed with the outreach that Sustrans performed on Prestwich. They also performed consultation on Walton Road in Trafford and a colleague who lives on that road reported back that his interviewer that day to collect his opinion wrote down not one word that criticised the scheme design, layout or proposed traffic flow alternatives for residents and emergency vehicles.
Then again, surely it’s not rocket science not to employ a group intent on putting in the scheme to take charge of public engagement. It’s hardly going to win doubters over or install confidence that the residents views were being listened to. Hopefully Trafford come to the same conclusion as Bury.
..and as a follow up, the Walton Road scheme's been rejected by Trafford. Seems there was a backlash against Sustrans and TfGM trying to force the programme through. Who'd have thought it?
Hi jockblue, thanks for your comment and taking the time to read the piece. Really interesting something similar has happened at Walton Road!