Minister says he'll consider switching off traffic lights to help ease congestion

the report covers a number of areas - I looked at  one with interest as here in Melbourne (as in the UK) - the issue of "taking away" parking spaces from outside businesses is a major issue...

(with adjacent trams it is literally a matter of life and death)

from page 15 of the report:

http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/in-the-media/files/IEA%20Seein...

........Parking policies appear to have a particularly detrimental impact, often combined with other measures (see Portas 2011). Bus and cycle lanes can mean parking restrictions outside homes and businesses. These may deter car-owning households which, compared with car-free households, tend to be better off (ONS 2014). They may be replaced by a shifting population in multiple-occupancy housing or low-income tenants on housing benefit and/or local authority leases. Thus traffic control can contribute to social decay. (ref 28)

 Similarly, anti-car policies can damage local businesses by making it less convenient to visit their locality. With car owners’ spending pushed elsewhere, local businesses may fail or go downmarket in a spiral of urban ‘degeneration’. (ref 29)

There is already a problem with shabby high streets blighted by boarded-up businesses and a shift downmarket catering to lower-income, non-car driving customers. Unattractive environments in turn deter the better-heeled from residing in the afflicted areas. Blighted neighbourhoods may then become targets of government regeneration policies, at additional cost to taxpayers.

28 This field would benefit from further research to explore the relationship.

29 A survey of local newspaper reports reveals this to be a widespread problem across the UK. For example: ‘Bus lanes have put me out of business, claims shop owner’, Manchester Evening News, 12 January 2013.

so cycle lanes and non car ownership are responsible for urban decline and blighted neighbourhoods? As the reference says this field would benefit from research but this isn't reflected in the conclusions.

Using the views expressed in local newspaper reports as the only facts to support the conclusion seems very weak.

For an alternative view on the impact of taking space away from cars try this - maybe equally guilty on looking only at evidence that supports an argument but at least looks at some data:

http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2015/03/the-complete-business-case-for-...

He's  my constituency MP, and as far as I can tell, reasonably open-minded - not just pro-car and anti-everything else.

But you can have a lot of fun asking if they missed the module on externalities when they were at school (last year) and failing that, how does the Institute fund itself

After many years of progress, pedestrian deaths have recently  begun to rise.

He's the Road Safety Minister.

Quite a lot of what comes out of there is comedy gold. If you try and debate externalities with them, they refuse to recognise them unless favourable to their hypothesis. The good minister should consider the report and file it in the round thing on the floor in the corner.

Yeah - they lost me at "The evidence of shared space schemes shows the transformational benefits of less regulated approach" yeah - the eveidence is negative - stop giving us this crap!  

Traffic lights work to ease congestion during busy times (i.e. when there is congestion).  

When its not congested then they aren't needed... but its also not congested! 

So how the hell is turning them off going to ease congestion!?

Its also going to make it even harder to cross the road.  

There are a million other things to try to reduce congestion, like actually reducing traffic levels,  before we turn off all the traffic lights and move another step closer to being the thrid world country these Tory dimiwits want us to be!

Take anything suggested by Richard Wellings with a good deal of scepticism. He has recently teamed up with Martin Cassini - Shared Space protaganist . Getting rid of pavements, traffic lights and any other impediments under the guise of Shared Space allows takeover of space by motorised traffic to the exclusion of every other road user.  Suits his agenda perfectly.

"Unfortunate effects on motorists"

Does he mean the inability to move through public spaces with absolutely no delay and unimpeded by anyone else regardless of safety, air pollution, noise pollution, space taken, resources consumed, damage to public infrastructure and the huge consequences to public health of a lazy, motor centric society?

That is unfortunate...

This seems to be a popular, easy vote winning soundbite policy. Some of the Bristol Mayoral candidates are spouting this one for the forthcoming election, I think to pander to the anti-George (Ferguson - current independent mayor) brigade who see him as anti-car.

Makes George alright in my book therefore!

If there are no more lights, what would we jump?? 

If there are no more lights, what would we jump?? 

actually, I'm all for removal of traffic lights, getting more and more fed up of stopping at lights late at nightand having to wait several minutes for a car to come and acompany through.

It would be nice if the IEA showed similar enthusiasm for a proper cost benefit analysis of private motoring, and the consequent suppression of cycling and walking.

What is it with right-wing "think tanks" and cars?