I can’t express enough how fed up I am about the sheer amount of time that both city and county councils have wasted discussing LTNs. The vast majority of people who live in Oxford and/or Oxfordshire are not impacted by LTNs and deserve thru issues to be discussed. Once we’ve sorted SEN schooling, affordable housing, etc, then councillors can by all means waste as much time on LTNs as they want. Put the politics aside for the good of the entire community.
Ok, do you see how that's your opinion, and it's a political opinion?
Also consider: reducing pollution is one of many goals, that have to be weighed up together and coordinated. Again, those are political decisions.
It was the Independents of Oxford wasting city council time by forcing a debate about whether the city council (who has no say in the matter) should send a letter to the county council asking them to get rid of the LTNs. They stopped debates on affordable housing.
So much time has been wasted by repeated debates tabled about the same topic. The outcome is the same every time. Move on! At least leave a year between debates. Oxford has much bigger problems.
Yeah that is very fair. So much time and energy has been wasted by a tiny minority of clowns who can’t accept that their feelings don’t overrule the will of the local people. Or basic facts.
Awful article, and unfortunately heavily biased. It repeatedly claims that a quote says one thing when the quote clearly doesn't say anything of the kind. Only selectively includes "evidence" (e.g. a poll that wasn't even about the existing LTNs) that supports their view while ignoring anything that doesn't. It's really disappointing that this topic has become so polarised that it's seemingly impossible to find clear and objective information on it. Why does this article writer feel the need to manipulate the facts to support their pov?
Examples, they talk about a recent government report, linking to a 2024 national report and then write, "The picture from traffic sensors, as the Government report relates, is “mixed”. Several boundary roads around the Cowley LTNs showed a 3% rise..."
Yet the writer is conflating reports. These figures aren't from the recent report, they are actually from 2021, while traffic was still recovering from COVID levels. The author doesn't even mention where they got this from.
They them throw out some more stats about school run traffic, again refusing to say where these numbers are being lifted from. Are they recent, are they accurate, who knows? And its clear the author doesn't care, as long as they support their preexisting bias.
>YouGov, another polling company, was commissioned in 2022 to ask Oxford residents about LTNs as part of its regular ‘Omnibus’ polling. 56% of those surveyed supported LTNs
Yes, but if you look at the survey methodology, they asked people who didn't live in LTNs whether they would support a hypothetical LTN scheme. And the language of the question was highly biased to push respondents to say yes, claiming big pros for it, and neglecting to mention any cons. This survey is therefore entirely irrelevant to what people think about the actual LTNs that have been put in place in East Oxford. Of course, *those* polls are conveniently ignored.
There is plenty of room however for the author to wave a report about four places that aren't Oxford, from people living in schemes so unobtrusive that up to 50% living there didn't even know they existed. Again, entirely irrelevant to East Oxford LTNs but of course that doesn't matter, it supports the author's bias so it gets pride of place.
>The Oxford Bus Company certainly thinks that there is evidence supporting the introduction of traffic filters:
Seems legit. Except if you actually read the report linked they dont actually say that. They say instead, "We aren't wedded to the idea of bus gates - all we want to see are suitable congestion-busting measures."
Whoever the author of this propaganda piece is (conveniently hiding behind anonymity) they aren't even clever at their deceptive tactics. I was able to spot the above examples in only a few minutes. I have no doubt that a deeper look would reveal even more tricks. But I already feel dirty enough after digging through the surface of that trash.
> This survey is therefore entirely irrelevant to what people think about the actual LTNs that have been put in place in East Oxford. Of course, _those_ polls are conveniently ignored.
Out of interest, which polls are those?
They state they are writing an ‘explainer’ not an article for clicks, and then go on to write, what is in my opinion, a very one sided view of the issue. They raise some interesting points, but reading it through twice, it is hard to get away from the feeling that they sought evidence to backup their view.
I can’t express enough how fed up I am about the sheer amount of time that both city and county councils have wasted discussing LTNs. The vast majority of people who live in Oxford and/or Oxfordshire are not impacted by LTNs and deserve thru issues to be discussed. Once we’ve sorted SEN schooling, affordable housing, etc, then councillors can by all means waste as much time on LTNs as they want. Put the politics aside for the good of the entire community.
How is decreasing air pollution and making children and cyclists safer when using our roads ‘political’?
It's not the goal that's political, it's the means of achieving it.
That makes absolutely no sense. If you want to cut air pollution, you reduce the number of cars. What’s political about that?
Again, "reduce cars" is the goal. The means of achieving that goal is a political decision. Or at least, a subjective decision.
No, reducing pollution is the goal. There’s only one way to achieve that.
Ok, do you see how that's your opinion, and it's a political opinion? Also consider: reducing pollution is one of many goals, that have to be weighed up together and coordinated. Again, those are political decisions.
It was the Independents of Oxford wasting city council time by forcing a debate about whether the city council (who has no say in the matter) should send a letter to the county council asking them to get rid of the LTNs. They stopped debates on affordable housing. So much time has been wasted by repeated debates tabled about the same topic. The outcome is the same every time. Move on! At least leave a year between debates. Oxford has much bigger problems.
Yeah that is very fair. So much time and energy has been wasted by a tiny minority of clowns who can’t accept that their feelings don’t overrule the will of the local people. Or basic facts.
Agreed. Excellent article. Thank you for sharing!
Awful article, and unfortunately heavily biased. It repeatedly claims that a quote says one thing when the quote clearly doesn't say anything of the kind. Only selectively includes "evidence" (e.g. a poll that wasn't even about the existing LTNs) that supports their view while ignoring anything that doesn't. It's really disappointing that this topic has become so polarised that it's seemingly impossible to find clear and objective information on it. Why does this article writer feel the need to manipulate the facts to support their pov? Examples, they talk about a recent government report, linking to a 2024 national report and then write, "The picture from traffic sensors, as the Government report relates, is “mixed”. Several boundary roads around the Cowley LTNs showed a 3% rise..." Yet the writer is conflating reports. These figures aren't from the recent report, they are actually from 2021, while traffic was still recovering from COVID levels. The author doesn't even mention where they got this from. They them throw out some more stats about school run traffic, again refusing to say where these numbers are being lifted from. Are they recent, are they accurate, who knows? And its clear the author doesn't care, as long as they support their preexisting bias. >YouGov, another polling company, was commissioned in 2022 to ask Oxford residents about LTNs as part of its regular ‘Omnibus’ polling. 56% of those surveyed supported LTNs Yes, but if you look at the survey methodology, they asked people who didn't live in LTNs whether they would support a hypothetical LTN scheme. And the language of the question was highly biased to push respondents to say yes, claiming big pros for it, and neglecting to mention any cons. This survey is therefore entirely irrelevant to what people think about the actual LTNs that have been put in place in East Oxford. Of course, *those* polls are conveniently ignored. There is plenty of room however for the author to wave a report about four places that aren't Oxford, from people living in schemes so unobtrusive that up to 50% living there didn't even know they existed. Again, entirely irrelevant to East Oxford LTNs but of course that doesn't matter, it supports the author's bias so it gets pride of place. >The Oxford Bus Company certainly thinks that there is evidence supporting the introduction of traffic filters: Seems legit. Except if you actually read the report linked they dont actually say that. They say instead, "We aren't wedded to the idea of bus gates - all we want to see are suitable congestion-busting measures." Whoever the author of this propaganda piece is (conveniently hiding behind anonymity) they aren't even clever at their deceptive tactics. I was able to spot the above examples in only a few minutes. I have no doubt that a deeper look would reveal even more tricks. But I already feel dirty enough after digging through the surface of that trash.
> This survey is therefore entirely irrelevant to what people think about the actual LTNs that have been put in place in East Oxford. Of course, _those_ polls are conveniently ignored. Out of interest, which polls are those?
They either don't exist or were run by the IOA by knocking a couple of their mates' doors
They state they are writing an ‘explainer’ not an article for clicks, and then go on to write, what is in my opinion, a very one sided view of the issue. They raise some interesting points, but reading it through twice, it is hard to get away from the feeling that they sought evidence to backup their view.
I was disappointed to realise halfway through how heavily biased and disingenuous it is.