-
How can people get that upset about something so beneficial is beyond me.
There are many reasons.
Some people actually disagree that it's beneficial or only beneficial.
Many people depend on using cars or vans for their jobs and not everyone can contemplate a switch to e-cargo-bikes.
The dominant culture, never mind the middle-class advocates of filtering who don't depend on cars for their jobs (although they'll mostly have cars), is still based on the nonsense that 20th century science fiction writers concocted about transport--that in the future, people will depend on machines for transportation far more, that using machines is better than not using them, that using artificially-powered machines is better than using human-powered ones, and so forth.
Very many people feel that cars are very beneficial. They make travel comfortable, enjoyable, and easy, so why restrict their use? Again, this comes from the dominant culture. So many of humanity's oldest dreams realised in one universal tool. *swoons*
There's been quite a lot of talk about privileged areas vs. underprivileged areas. One thing that filtering does is increase house prices, and people worry about being priced out of their area if it turns into a much nicer, quieter area where wealthier people than them will want to buy houses. Yes, really.
Another main reason for opposition is obviously the lack of consultation. Many people feel powerless even in issues that affect them locally, and it's completely understandable that it can arouse strong feelings. They want to be able to have a voice or a vote--not realising that consultation isn't actually a voting process, no matter how many times it is portrayed in this way by politicians/the side that 'won'--it's an information-gathering exercise that tries to find any legal impediments or other sensible issues (local knowledge), a bit like the vicar asking whether anyone knows of any reason why the happy couple shouldn't wed. Nonetheless, 'consultation' has become this incendiary issue, because people pin hopes on it that they might be able to influence something that way.
Also, interestingly, many people don't actually think so much about themselves in opposing these, but worry about how it'll affect others. I've had hundreds of conversations about filtering, and one form of worry that comes up a lot is: 'But what will people do?' Not: 'What will I do?'
Finally, the ever-present issue of freedom. Most people, or perhaps all, worry about freedoms being taken away. And yes, sure, instead of taking away the freedom to drive along this or that street, ideally we'd get everyone to behave (drive better, drive less) so that traffic wouldn't be a problem, i.e. they could exercise their own freedom to give themselves those kinds of limitations, without someone else taking their freedom away. But would that ever happen?
I wrote this some time ago:
I support filtering, but that's no reason to dismiss arguments--even if they're put across in bad faith, they need addressing--and some of them are sound, although often don't present difficulties that can't be overcome. One reason why these debates can become so polarised is because people supporting filtering often don't engage in proper discussion, either!
In principle, the idea of blocking roads and streets off to through traffic (even if just some kinds of through traffic) is absurd. Roads and streets have the very clear and express purpose of facilitating movement, not of obstructing it. It's a similar problem to that with vertical deflection, i.e. humps and cushions. However, roads and streets also have another purpose, namely that of staying and dwelling, e.g. in neighbourly conversation, and in practice, with the advent of motor traffic all streets came to be skewed too much towards the first purpose. A workable compromise is to designate suitable cell boundary streets for through motor traffic while denying this purpose to the network inside cells.
This works on the proviso that it's done in conjunction with the people who live there and who by extension use the local streets the most (i..e, you have to hire people who can facilitate such a process), that it's done right (on which more later), and that it's done everywhere--bearing in mind that people living on cell boundary streets will still have to put up with through motor traffic, although there would be less of it throughout the system.
Filtering requires area-wide thinking, that is, looking at an image of the street pattern and working out where the best filtering locations would be, using local knowledge (e.g. 'this is a school and the school bus can't turn in a dead end, so something needs to be done about that' or 'the best possible location for a filter is also where someone with mobility difficulties needs to park their car', etc.). This is best achieved by working with local people, a process officers hate and which they usually shun, while still feeding in expertise on how best to filter and bearing in mind that the Waste Service still need to empty the bins.
Oliver Schick-
All good points; a few additional thoughts:
It's worth noting that filtering in the centre of cells doesn't preclude treatments at edge junctions like tightening the radius of turns, making footways continuous and roads discontinuous through raised crossings etc., which slows traffic on entry to a cell and indicates a change of purpose of the road and area.
The point about freedom is, I think, partly underpinned by the belief that the transport situation now is the end result of people's unconstrained choices and therefore represents some sort of optimal free-market solution to transport i.e., "people were free to choose anything and they chose cars". This obviously isn't true since we've got at least half a century of prioritising car use over other modes through policy and road design and this will obviously have influenced people's choices. It also ignores the fact that use of cars excludes other modes by making the road environment subjectively or objectively hostile to them. So even if you believe streets are meant to be for through movement (as opposed to living/playing/shopping/socialising etc.) you still have to accept that making them thoroughfares predominantly for cars has, in effect, reduced people's freedom by preventing them from choosing other modes. Giving them back this option is not some sort of socialist diktat, it's just design of our public spaces in the same way that designing them for cars was (but obviously much more people-friendly).
I think there's also a linked point about people's expectation that they should be able to drive to exactly where they want and that the continuation of society, the economy and basic human existence somehow rests on this. People seem to think that shops will just fail if they can't be stocked from lorries/vans parked immediately outside and that likewise shoppers need to park on the shop's doorstep. Some people also seem to feel the need to park right outside their door, which I suspect is more about extending their perceived freehold and/or the security of their car than convenience. I understand that in other countries this expectation does not exist to such a degree and that people accept that they have to leave their car on the outside of a residential area (which may only mean a cluster of buildings 100m across) in order for that area itself to be more liveable.
The whole middle-class vs. working-class argument makes no sense to me (given patterns of car ownership); however, if "working-class" is being used as a proxy for "tradespeople" then it's worth addressing in those terms. What confuses me most about this is that tradespeople operate everywhere across the world. They do have plumbing in Amsterdam/Delft/Copenhagen, which suggests that either plumbers can operate without vans or they can still access everywhere in cities that have de-prioritised motorised through traffic. Even ancient city centres that are almost impassible to cars have services and heavy household goods like fridges, so these obviously get in there somehow. Forward-thinking tradespeople will be considering how to adapt to these changes to stay ahead of the competition.
Consultation is a real bugbear and although it probably is disconcerting to have changes made to your local area, it seems likely that extensive consultation prior to every temporary experimental solution will just result in nothing happening (we're very much in Ford's "faster horse" territory here). As you say, these changes need to happen everywhere so consultation cannot be simply an opportunity for a particular community to opt out of the application of a national transport policy.
I think the arguing on behalf of others (the elderly, people with disabilities) may come from genuine concern but is also often a smokescreen for the arguer's own wishes. I suspect that many making the argument are blind to the other everyday challenges faced by these groups and have done little to campaign for them. These marginalised groups are also very heterogeneous in ways that defy stereotypes and often benefit from schemes in ways that are not understood by those objecting on their behalf. It's really important that they get to speak for themselves.
-
priced out of their area if it turns into a much nicer, quieter area where wealthier people than them will want to buy houses
It's a legitimate concern right?
ffm
psg1ben
How can people get that upset about something so beneficial is beyond me.