A Green New Deal

I appreciate that not everybody likes car use but some people are not able to use public transport easily, and not all journeys are practical by public transport. I strongly disagree with removing parking spaces so people can't park outside their homes.

I would like to see more done for pedestrians, cyclists seem to be prioritised to our detriment. I have yet to see any pavements widened in my local area, yet cycle schemes have meant more idling cars to contend with and faster cyclists (who frequently jump traffic lights) to be wary of. When I cycle, I use back roads for a far more pleasant experience but as a female pedestrian it is often safer to stick to main roads, with pollution and fast (often dangerous) cyclists. I do not agree with removing parking spaces so people can't park outside their homes. With consultation I believe that making some residential roads one way, for motor vehicles at least, would benefit all. This would lead to less congestion which is better for residents, drivers, cyclists and pedestrians and perhaps there will be some room for wider pavements or greenery on the streets.

London needs a comprehensive network of low traffic neighbourhoods, cycle lanes along through corridors and enforcement to prevent speeding and illegal parking.

Please, please, please Mr Planners - keep bicycles off the pavements and stop designing mixed traffic/pedestrian areas with bicycles allowed to ride through them; what you are really doing is designing areas that the elderly and those with sight difficulties are frightened to use.

Be honest and stop being robotic, Sadiq and team; there are many thousands of cyclists on the roads across Greater London, within the M25, and at most 0.001% of them use the ridiculous designated cycle lanes you have constructed, that cause traffic chaos and congestion - even during the Covid-19 pandemic, so goodness knows how much worse it will be after the 'lock-downs' end - resulting in air pollution from stagnant traffic.
Either 'bite the bullet' and make it illegal for cycles to be anywhere on the roads other than in the designated cycle lanes or else remove all the designated cycle lanes, free up traffic flow and reduce air pollution by reducing stagnant traffic. You can't have it both ways and expect to get things right!

A few points in response to comments about LTNs:
• Air pollution kills about 40,000 people per year in the UK – anything that we can do to reduce it must surely be welcomed.
• It was found that, although air quality improved dramatically in the first half of 2020, pollution had returned to or exceeded pre-Covid levels in 80% of the 49 cities and large towns that were analysed in December 2020. Again, anything that we can do to reverse this must surely be welcomed.
• Guy’s and St Thomas’ Charitable Trust considers that the health and social benefits of reducing motor traffic are so substantial that it is giving Southwark council £250,000 to install planters and removable bollards in three areas in the borough.
• Research has found that having protected cycle lanes reduces the odds of cycling injuries by 40%-65%, while LTNs have been found to reduce injuries for all road users by 70%.
• People like them – a YouGov poll in October 2002 found that 57% of people strongly supported or tended to support LTNs, while only 16% strongly opposed or tended to oppose them. In addition, where people had opinions on LTNs, positive views were more than three times more prevalent than negative ones.
• A further study, in March 2021, found that low-traffic neighbourhoods do not disproportionately benefit more privileged communities.
• Furthermore, in response to a FoI request, ambulance trusts stated that LTNs, popup cycle lanes, widened pavements and other walking and cycling schemes introduced in response to the Covid-19 pandemic have not hindered ambulance response times.
There seem to be so many benefits associated with LTNs that it seems madness not to proceed with more of them.

Whilst agreeing with this in principle I feel strongly that the needs of those who are unable to make their journeys by bicycle or on foot MUST be taken into account. This might be because of their job role, or their personal vulnerabilities, but recognising and accommodating everyone’s needs is important for a balanced and happy community.

These just cause more pollution as traffic that is inevitable is left standing due to the reduced traffic flow. Cyclists are among the most irresponsible road users and fail to adhere to legal requirements and laws but never get prosecuted. we need Licensing for ALL road users with insurance including scooters, road legal mobility scooters and all cars and vans lorries etc.

Encouraging people to walk and cycle is so important in the fight to reduce carbon emissions and it needed not cost a vast amount.
Linking up existing parks with accessible links is a good way of encouraging walking and cycling
Making sure that pavements are accessible for all and marked as so
Information provision, telling people what is available
This would be a good way of increasing walking and cycling

Mrs Justice Lane's High Court judgment included this on the road closures which have already taken place: • In my judgment, the flaws identified were symptomatic of an ill-considered response which sought to take advantage of the pandemic to push through, on an emergency basis without consultation, “radical changes” . It worries me hugely that both this judgment and the views of key anti-pollution campaigners like Rosamund Kissi-Debrah (she and other clean-air-for-schools campaigners have been vocal in their opposition to LTN's) are being ignored with proposals for yet more road closures. It's actually anti-green to pursue schemes which thanks to the absence of detailed planning and consultation with key groups are ineffective, damaging to post COVID recovery and putting the health of residents and users of main roads at risk. None of the key issues for green, clean London are solved. We must find a way to finance public transport so that fares are affordable, concessions maintained and the fleet as environmentally-friendly as possible - this will include changing the tyres on buses, commitment to reconfiguring road surfaces and new street-cleaning protocols. Congestion charging is not the answer as fares have still risen and central London is now driver paradise for the rich. Much, much more must be done for pedestrians - the closed roads have had no additional lighting or CCTV and it shouldn't take a woman's murder to remind us of how unsafe women can feel. No effort has been made to get cyclists off the pavement and every day several cyclists make a nightmare of my own 2m walk from the station to work. Mrs Justice Lane was clear that the needs of the disabled and elderly have been marginalised already, so more road closures would be a slap in the face to them. And where is the compassion for tradesmen who have no choice but to drive, and in our pandemic world are struggling? No more green-wash please - real solutions.

I wholeheartedly support a reprioritisation of our streets across London so that public transport, cycling and walking are given priority over private and commercial vehicle use. This includes not just more cycle paths, but better cycling routes generally - protected from vehicular traffic, connected up, and not just a bit of paint in the gutter of the road or over some pavements. The benefits of this across the board could be life changing for vast swathes of Londoners (fewer people stuck in cars, more people exercising to getting around which leads to healthier people who are also happier and more effective at work, more people saving money that they'd otherwise spend on fuel, less pollution, less noise) but it does need commitment over many years, especially in the face of some often quite loud pro-car campaigners. Amsterdam, for instance, didn't become the bike-friendly, healthy place that it is overnight - it used to be car-dependent like London. It took many years of prioritising, and spending, on public transport, cycling and walking. Let's hope we can do the same.

This idea obviously comes from an able-bodied employed person with all faculties to walk, cycle and travel on public transport. In practice, it is a bad idea because elderly, retired people would be out on a limb without their car and unable to get around. The idea is also highly socialistic in that it assumes that funds appear from nowhere when required and ignores the fact that this country relies on capitalism and enterprise to survive. Recall what one of our best Prime Ministers said "Socialism works until you run out of other peoples' money".

It is easy enough to say one is in favour of more cycle lanes etc but there is no doubt that because of the current infrastructure and road layout, the consequences of this are increased traffic, more danger to cyclists and pedestrians, spill over into more residential areas and (of course) increased pollution. Relative to the amount of noise and virtue signalling, there seems to be very little (if any) actual thought about how to implement this (as well as taking into account the residents of effected areas). Nobody is AGAINST safer cycling etc. But just sticking up a bunch of wands on KHS and causing massive traffic snarls shows a complete lack of understanding of traffic, a complete disregard to the residents who have to suffer from this and serves only to create a false motorists vs cyclists battle that serves only to inflame opinion rather than find a long term solution.

I don't know the solution. But I do know that the current way of canvassing opinions that are suspect and politically motivated coupled with moronic physical implementation is only making things worse.

The ill thought out implementations of LTN and excessive cycle lanes are killing London. We all want cleaner air but as buses add more to emissions than cars we need to finish electrifying the fleet and insure bus lanes on roads have priority so those on mass transit are not delayed by bike lanes used by the 1% vs the majority Heathrow’s third runway will pollute us more from above than traffic below and the closed roads are creating gridlock, harming businesses and relocating pollution to poorer areas. Disabled and vulnerable have not been properly consulted with these plans. We need to keep London open post Covid not frozen

I hugely support a car-free and bike-friendly city and I understand that the transition will hurt. But right now, it hurts a lot if you live on one of the streets that have become bumper-to-bumper traffic with idling cars that used to be spread out more across other streets. Arguably, right now there is likely an increase in pollution. I would suggest that along the street closures and bike paths, a separate concept is required to actually reduce car use. I understand that this is tricky at a time when people are avoiding public transport. But, currently, living on a major London traffic vein really does not offer good quality of life (or air) anymore. Thanks.

Absolutely!
Far more pedestrianised streets and cycle lanes to cut down pollution.
VERY few people in Lond need a car - they might like it but they don't need it - the public transport is great and we all need to use it.
Perhaps get rid of the multi-story car parks that are mainly used for social driving?

Our lives are blighted by motor cars. They dominate all our public spaces and ruin the air that we breathe. They create noise and prevent the creation of neighbourhoods and community enjoyment of our streets. Speed limits are never enforced. People need safe and convenient alternatives to private automobiles, so any revenue from the congestion charge/parking fees should be ploughed back into public transport, wider pavements, better cycle paths and enforcing speed limits.

There is no essence of balance in this suggestion. All members of communities need to be respected and practicality taken into account.