"The more ways we have of getting from place to place, the less traffic there will be on each of them. Discuss!"That assumes there is a fixed supply of traffic and it never changes. This isn't correct. I've said this before, do things that make driving easier and cheaper, then more people drive. Do things that make driving more difficult and more expensive, then fewer people drive.I also could get horribly mathematical and talk about Braess's paradox which explains examples of cases when closing a road improves traffic flow and opening a road makes things worse. People in cars only really care about the cars in front of them, not the cars behind them, so acting in their own self interest can produce traffic flow that isn't optimal for many more others. An example of "tragedy of the commons".You are also assuming that someone driving along a residential street to maybe save some time is a higher priority than people on the street. So as soon as that person gets into a car, they are more important. Or put another way, the road is there to serve the person in the car rather than the road is there to serve the people on the street.For historical roads that have been there for hundreds of years, you could certainly make that case. However that doesn't apply to Weltje Rd. It was built for the houses in the 1800s. It then ended up being split in two by a 6 lane urban motorway in the 1950s. So it is a value judgement. However recent government policy makes it clear that more value is placed on the residents affected by through traffic than the convenience of drivers. You can argue about that all you want but it is policy of national government, Mayor of London and LBHF so diverting as it may be, you won't change anything by arguing with me about it.
Michael Robinson ● 2346d