Forum Topic

LTNs and the definition of a residential road

The concept of a Low Traffic Neighbourhood is a good one. The places where people live need to be protected against traffic flows being redirected through them particularly with Sat Navs tending to push it through areas which don't normally receive a lot of traffic.On the face of it this shouldn't be contentious but the developing problem with the schemes that have been implemented is - how are residential roads being defined. The LTN concept seems to assume that the definition of a residential road is not a road on which people live but a road where the primary purpose is housing and, if there is already a lot of traffic on the road, it is not being classed as residential.This means effectively that traffic is being concentrated to protect the majority of people to the detriment of a minority who are unlucky enough to live on the roads to which the flow is being diverted. The benefits of doing this for the people who live in the protected areas are clear and make a significant difference to their quality of life and, you could argue that the change for a person living on an already busy road will not be noticeable to them.So we have seen roads such as Staveley Road and Fishers Lane made even  more pleasant while roads such as Burlington Lane, Acton Lane, Sutton Court Road and the A4 are busier.We wouldn't normally consider the A4 as a residential road but lots of people do live next to it so, by the broadest definition it is.What I'd like to have confirmed is - have the health implications of these policies been properly considered? By concentrating traffic, you also concentrate the harmful effects of the pollution it generates. Is it the case that these road restrictions would benefit health overall if they succeed in reducing pollution overall or does this concentration create acute conditions for people with respiratory illnesses? As air quality policies have tended to target exceedences at hotspots, the implication is that these are seen as the main risk for health.Busier roads tend to be less expensive and have more social housing on them, so we really need to consider carefully if the net effect of these policies is just to improve the quality of life of a group of people who are already quite privileged at the cost of a serious deterioration of health for those who are already disadvantaged. As far as I can see, some quite impactful policies are being implemented without proper analysis being done on these considerations.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1363d112 Comments

London Cycling Campaign's descriptors are interesting: "Low traffic neighbourhoods are groups of residential streets, bordered by main, or distributor, roads (the places where buses, lorries, and non-local traffic should be)."  No nod therefore to residential/non-residential.Their position is that "cutting through-traffic on side streets doesn’t add significantly to congestion on main roads after the first few months."  They acknowledge that there might be CONCERN that increased congestion and pollution on main roads will happen but suggest that is all it is - concern not factual. Displaced traffic will evaporate.  They even put a figure on this "Around 15% of displaced traffic disappears from the area entirely as drivers adjust routes and behaviour".  So how much longer must we wait for evaporation then?  It was only supposed to be a few months.  And what about the other 85% of displaced traffic?  Does that evaporate too after a while?  Waltham Forest (often quoted) may be a traffic nirvana but there are plenty of other areas in London that are really suffering.I fear you are right, Jeremy, and that LTN theory is a zero-sum game.  Benefits for some (less traffic, cleaner air and all the health benefits which go with that) counterbalanced by disbenefits for others (increased traffic, congestion and pollution and all the health disbenefits which go with those).  And these inequalities will only become more pronounced with changes in property prices in the two types of area brought about by the perceived desirability of living in an LTN.

Marie Power ● 1363d

Others suggest that LTNs are not a zero-sum issue, as drivers are encouraged to use other modes of transport, such as walking or cycling.  The problem is that walking and cycling is more likely to be an option for local residents, who are intended to 'benefit' from an LTN, and less an option for through traffic that LTNs are designed to discourage by diverting them onto other routes.  Thus the new Hammersmith and Fulham schemes seem to be back-to-front, by diverting through traffic that's less likely to use alternative modes, yet not restricting local traffic that easily could.  To be properly effective, a road closure should close the road to all traffic, without social distinctions and confusing exemptions.

Peter Evans ● 1363d

You make some very good points. There is no doubt that making journeys more difficult by restricting access at various points will reduce the number of journeys made. However, to reduce congestion you need to be sure that the increase in the length of the remaining journeys in both terms of time and distance travelled does not outweigh the reduction in vehicles. This is fiendishly hard to measure whatever anyone tells you.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1363d

People generally choose routes that are quicker, not more direct. Hence the traffic data from the restrictions in Chiswick consistently shows their effect has been slightly reduced speeds but slightly more direct journeys, as assessed by Satnav data; it’s not fiendishly difficult to determine this if you have records of routes before and after the restrictions to compare.  Steer obtained this data from INRIX as part of the LBH traffic assessment. It’s certainly true that reduced speeds will slightly offset reduced traffic counts in terms of the vehicles on the road at any one time, but as the traffic reductions have been proportionately larger, overall there have been fewer vehicles on the roads.

Tom Pike ● 1362d

Utter Enid Blyton by Tom. How on earth has Fishers Lane closure resulted in more direct journeys across Chiswick? A mathematical impossibility. How on earth has Grove Park restrictions resulted in more direct journeys from “north Chiswick” out to the SW? It just can’t!Chiswick has been turned into a log jammed car park on way more occasions than it used to be and very sadly not the place it once was as a consequence.It’s a real shame that some people seem to take great pleasure in seeing the road system in our area grind to a halt these days.

Mark Talbot ● 1362d

Mark, it’s most certainly not a mathematical impossibility as the Steer review reports precisely that outcome! Drivers were choosing Fishers Lane as their route because it was quicker rather than more direct: close it and trips became shorter in distance, even it they took longer. It was mathematically implausible that closing Fishers Lane would increase traffic in South Parade. After all, traffic choosing Fishers Lane necessarily had to access it via South Parade. It turns out that on average taking a route via Fishers Lane was longer than heading down either Turnham Green Terrace or Acton Lane.  Hence closing Fishers Lane caused traffic on South Parade to drop overall and trips on average to become more direct, although also to take slightly longer.

Tom Pike ● 1362d

Tom, from what I can see the two dates for data in the Steer report coincided with significant COVID impacts. I posted this before but from memory on both occasions LHR traffic was at 10-20% of pre COVID levels. This is a broad indicator of the extent to which life was still disrupted. Its difficult if not impossible to make conclusions around 'normal' traffic patterns from those in the pandemic. There may not have been an increase in traffic on South Parade though we have no recent post COVID data to confirm that, but peak queues back up Acton Lane towards the petrol station have increased. So more pollution here. But no monitors.In some cases you are right that drivers chose this route as it was faster rather than more direct. Which tells us the most direct route, by larger roads, was already congested. So pushing more traffic there leads to more congestion.We see how the GP restrictions have increased A316 traffic, I dont think anyone who uses these routes would deny that. In turn the Hogarth roundabout is becoming more congested, with longer queues on the A4 both in and out of London at peak times. The west end of Chiswick resembles a car park many evenings, as TFL manages the lights on SCR so that traffic backs up SCR to Heathfield Terrace, joined by traffic diverting off the eastbound A4 by the Porsche garage when confronted with the A4 queues. Traffic on CHR westbound to Chiswick roundabout is solid back past the Acton Lane junction. Many of the side roads off these roads also fill with queuing traffic. Again, no pollution monitors or cameras here. One can sympathise with the goals of LTNs, but the refusal of advocates to acknowledge any downsides whilst somehow pretending traffic is not diverted and adds to congestion on other routes means it is hard to take them seriously. You will note that none of the vocal advocates live on any of the boundary of other larger roads that suffer....

Bill George ● 1362d

Bill, the comparison was between January 2020 and May 2021. After the closure of Fishers Lane trips were more direct both for those beginning and/or ending locally as well as passing through.Traffic on Fishers Lane used to be fairly constant from 8 am to 8 pm at 400 to 600 vehicles an hour, seven days a week: it wasn’t congestion that on the whole  drove that traffic, simply a preference to avoid the lights at TGT and Acton Lane.But that choice came at a cost to other traffic: one of the reasons why the running times of the 267 has measurably improved along the High Road in the last two years is because of the reduced delays due to exiting traffic negotiating the unsignalled junction at the southern end of Fishers Lane. Altogether the evidence is that the closure has benefitted the running times of buses along South Parade, the High Road as well as obviously Fishers Lane itself.  I’m surprised you are not applauding this!The Centre for London recently reviewed the effect of LTNs of traffic. They found unsurprisingly they reduced traffic with in LTN  in all of the 10 examples they listed. But traffic only increased on 3 of the 10 boundary roads and fell on 5, with data updated for June 2022.  Of course critics can always say that more observations are needed, but they are less willing to accept that to date there is little evidence that LTNs inevitably lead to more traffic on their boundary roads.https://www.centreforlondon.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CFL-StreetShift-LTNs-Final.pdf

Tom Pike ● 1362d

How about common sense and what’s actually happening on the ground rather than Steer report this Steer report that fgs?! So when I drive to the bottom of Esmond Rd, hang a left along South Parade, down TGT, right into CHR, then right into Windmill Rd round to the back of M&S car park rather than pop through Fishers Lane that’s a more direct and sensible route emissions wise eh? And no I can’t walk when transporting tools and / or parts if going there for 1 reason nor carry a load of shopping back if the other reason I’d do that journey.You can quote whatever you like till the cows come home, the absolute FACT is that South Parade becomes a log jam far more regularly than it ever used to and to deny that is on a par with claiming white is black.

Mark Talbot ● 1362d

Tom, so thanks for confirming the steer report is comparing Pre COVID with COVID impacted travel. LHR in May 2021 was just 10% of May 2019 traffic, a good indictor of how much normal life was disrupted, from lack of travel to WFH etc. Its very hard to conclude anything at all from such a comparison.As for the impact of LTNs, the simple answer is it will vary. The whole point of GP restriction was to stop through traffic heading to the A4/ Chiswick roundabout. Local residents and regular users can see how much worse the traffic is on the A316 is, and the left turn at Hogarth a particular bottleneck. More green time for this traffic has worsened A4 queues. Some of that GP traffic will sit in queues, others divert via Kew bridge or replan journeys. The impact of these queues diverting more traffic into W4 is not addressed. When there are no traffic cameras and no pollution monitors its very easy to pretend problems dont exist.

Bill George ● 1362d

The” absolute fact” is that traffic monitoring data, whether from Inrix or iBus, shows overall traffic and congestion is down on South Parade. Of course if you accessed Fishers Lane from Esmond Road you weren’t adding much to the traffic on South Parade, but that’s a very small proportion of the traffic that used Fishers Lane. Common sense would indeed suggest that most traffic would have diverted along South Parade to access Fishers Lane. Shut Fishers Lane and that traffic no longer takes South Parade.  Of course there are particular destinations where restrictions undoubtedly mean trips become longer, but that doesn’t contradict that overall people tend to go out of their way if it makes a journey quicker.

Tom Pike ● 1362d

We have traffic counts from Bath Road, and they are only marginally down compared to preCovid levels.  To use flight volumes at Heathrow as a direct  indicator of traffic on local roads has little validity in comparison.  Overall traffic on local roads is down in all five areas of W4 covered by the INRIX data, and that addresses directly your unsupported and certainly counterintuitive suggestion that somehow restricting traffic only diverts more traffic into the area.

Tom Pike ● 1362d

Tom, I think you are missing the point. Do you deny that life was hugely disrupted during the pandemic? That many journey patterns changed. LHR traffic data is a simple proxy for that impact, although we know LHR does make a big contribution to A4 traffic. Its very hard to make conclusions about local vs through traffic or overall traffic on the basis of the Steer reports.WHy is it coutnerintuitive to suggest that displaced traffic has knock on effects? The A316 is much busier northbound and this impacts the Hogarth. This in turn has other impacts and parts of W4 suffer the impact. I dont have access to the INRIX data and we would also need to revisit the definition of 'traffic' and volumes vs congestion.

Bill George ● 1362d

Of course traffic has changed, but flight volumes at Heathrow is a very poor proxy in comparison to traffic volumes on neighbouring local roads.  You are arguing that restrictions on through traffic on local roads pushes more traffic onto the main roads which in turn displaces more traffic onto local roads. That’s an incoherent argument that overlooks the restrictions on local roads in the first place!You can access the Steer reports as easily as I can, and there you will see that there is no evidence from the Inrix data that traffic levels have increased on local roads, quite the opposite. That goes against your consistent narrative which might explain your repeated failure to incorporate that evidence into your analysis.

Tom Pike ● 1362d

Here is a simple graphic to help people who are STILL struggling to understand how and why LTNs work to reduce the aggregate volume of cars in an area.

Paul Campbell ● 1362d

“As far as I can see, some quite impactful policies are being implemented without proper analysis being done on these considerations.”You missed this analysis:• Across London, people in deprived areas were 2.5 times more likely to live in a new LTN than people in less deprived areas.• Across London, households without a car were 1.6 times more likely than car owners to live in an LTN.• At the micro-level, LTN residents were demographically similar to neighbours in nearby boundary areas.https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0966692321002477

Tom Pike ● 1362d

I prefer to go by what I have experienced the last 12 months v pre Fishers Lane closure. Ie the real world experience when going about day to day life.Tom, you now acknowledge that before I wasn’t adding much to traffic on South Parade with that journey whereas it now does. The same goes for anyone shopping at Sainsburys who previously used Fishers Lane and now fights through the traffic of South Parade rather than going to Acton Morrisons instead. Common sense does not dictate that most traffic would have diverted along South Parade to access Fishers Lane, certainly not for any great length of it as it previously percolated via The Orchard, Esmond, Ramillies, St Albans etc to it whereas now all such traffic is funnelled along South Parade.A child’s diagram posted by Paul attempting to claim traffic evaporation takes no account of specific circumstances and totally misrepresentative of the real world.

Mark Talbot ● 1362d

"As far as I can see" is a useful disclaimer that should preface every post from the cagers on this forum who STILL can't accept that the theories behind the reprioritisation of road space away from private car journeys are supported by facts and evidence from countless real-life examples of their implementation including those here in Chiswick while their counter-theories rely on anecdote and "lived experience". Strong "we've had enough of experts" energy from people who cannot compute that their own short personal car journeys are not representative of system traffic flows and how they adapt to changes in the road network.

Paul Campbell ● 1362d

If your personal experience is that most of the traffic on South Parade comes from its side roads rather than from Acton Lane and The Avenue, then that experience is most certainly not representative of the actual flow.Paul’s diagram reflects what has been observed in general when traffic is restricted: levels fall. It’s actually completely uncontroversial in traffic studies of existing networks that if you build more roads you induce demand, and if you restrict traffic demand falls as travel modes shift. It would indeed be denying reality to claim otherwise.

Tom Pike ● 1362d

I think traffic on the A4 through Chiswick increased from circa 75K vehicles per day in 2008 to circa 100K per day in 2019.https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk/manualcountpoints/26116The OP and others argue that it has increased further due to displacement from LTNs and probably cycle lanes, so I expect it must be 125K per day by now?Putting that to one side, I wonder how many people in 2019 argued that the increase in traffic and pollution on the A4 was unfair to the poor people (in both senses) who lived on this "residential road".Was there a significant number saying that this traffic should instead be diverted through Grove Park so that pollution is redistributed among rich people too as that's only fair?

Ed Saper ● 1362d

There were zero complaints when a length of bus lane was removed along the High Road after 2015, but when a shorter distance was removed in 2020 there was a sudden concern that C9 was inconveniencing bus passengers. It is notable that such concerns only surface for some people when they feel their driving is being restricted.

Tom Pike ● 1362d

Let's settle this once and for all. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-latin-america-64109817

Bruce Hammal ● 1362d

Ah, Rachel Aldred. Anything that’s not sponsored by the LCC? Her analysis was flawed from the outset.https://singlefile.org/lies-damn-lies-and-fudged-statistics-the-fight-for-londons-streets/What you and other advocates of these schemes ignore is that lots of LTNs don’t work, for the people living in them and for the people living outside them. Most of the ones in Ealing were removed for that reason. DfT admitted the through traffic data used to justify schemes was incorrect, it eventually emerged. Yet still you restate the same false ‘facts’. No wonder most don’t believe you.https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/01/war-motorists-based-false-government-data-calls-scrap-ltns-grow/

Simon Hayes ● 1362d

Think her analysis was foregone from the start. Almost liked her stuff on Walter Benjamin for that SWP rag, but she’s gone a bit reductionist since those heady days.

Russell Pearson ● 1362d

Simon, it's the analysis you've highlighted that is fatally flawed, not the paper they criticise. In "Part Three:- The Goodman Study is inherently flawed, and here's your proof" the authors claim to have uncovered that in fact injuries outside of LTNs have fallen by a much larger absolute amount than inside LTNs. At that point they rest their case.In fact they have uncovered nothing, but rather have ignored the fact that injuries fell significantly across London in the compared periods and furthermore that the boroughs without LTNs had 30 times more injuries in the first place than the LTN areas so would be expected to show much larger absolute drops. The authors completely fail to understand that it's necessary to use relative casualty rates which reflect the risk rather than the absolute number of casualties which in this case simply reflect the much larger areas of boroughs outside of LTNs.Either the authors are incompetent in their use of basic statistics or understand what they are doing are nevertheless deliberately seeking to mislead. Furthermore anyone who claims this amounts to a proof that the Goodman Study is flawed falls into one of these two categories. As for the Telegraph article, that also shows bad faith in its criticisms. LTNs were introduced before the DfT revised its counts on minor roads upwards in September 2020 and it is therefore simply impossible that revisions made after the Ealing LTNs were introduced in July 2020 were used to justify the LTNs! You are also either acting in ignorance or in bad faith to make such a claim. Which is it?

Tom Pike ● 1362d

Tom, wasn’t the 2021 Aldred paper you cited “Equity in new active travel infrastructure: A spatial analysis of London's new Low Traffic Neighbourhoods”? Which merely states the obvious, and expected.

Russell Pearson ● 1362d

Tom, you are unfailingly polite. Anybody who sincerely cites SingleFile as an authority on anything automatically disqualifies themselves from the debate. It's pretty much exactly the same as citing Tommy Robinson as an authority on immigration.

Paul Campbell ● 1362d

Tom always is polite and respectful. May I respectfully request Paul, that you take a leaf out of his good book and follow his exemplary example? 🤗

Russell Pearson ● 1362d

I don't think I'll be taking lectures on politeness from the guy who called the Councillors in Brentford "the Brentford Taliban" thanks Russ.

Paul Campbell ● 1362d

Old japes - I quoted that comment from a local wag, perhaps once, or twice some time back. But you seem keen to outdo me on that score, to say the least. All froth on the waves.But. As I kindly suggest, chill down a bit Paul and be polite to those who disagree with you.

Russell Pearson ● 1362d

I live on a heavily residential road. It was made a "boundary road" by Ealing Council when they introduced LTN's.The result was a lot of extra pollution, congestion, stress and cost. The Council eventually saw sense and got rid.Now NO more extra pollution, congestion, stress and cost and most of all, no more warfare on local social media.

Nick Jenkins ● 1362d

Paul, yes, both the articles Simon cited are good tests of the bona fides of anyone who claims they have a reasoned contribution to make. Both rely on a mixture of ignorance and bad faith to attempt to make their point.Just to highlight this underlying mix, in the fourth part of the article the author seeks to undermine the Goodman algorithm, which is no more than the standard and very well stablished  "p-value" testing for statistical significance. The spurious claim is made that this algorithm justifies as significant an increase in one count in a sample of five counts, when in fact the algorithm would immediately conclude to the contrary that such a change has no statistical significance. Amusingly, the author also dismisses the algorithm because it doesn't show what he wants it to show, that the reduction in injuries outside the LTNs has any statistical significance. As he is certain what the answer has to be, he is insistent that we should reject a standard algorithm as "statistical propoganda". The fact that this is such a rudimentary error in basic statistics strongly suggests a classic case of Dunning-Kruger syndrome where the limited competence of the author has only fed their certainty in being correct. Simon has simply followed suit.

Tom Pike ● 1362d

Oh dear. More babbling about bad faith and inevitable nonsensical statistics that price nothing. You simply dismiss anything that fails to tally with your prejudice.In Ealing the LTN experiment was imposed to combat ‘future rat running’ (a term which shouldn’t be included in any reasoned debate). It wasn’t to address any problems that existed or might even have arisen in future. In the words of disgraced ex council leader Julian Bell they were imposed to ‘take advantage of Covid’ because it was what he and a small band of cycling zealots wanted. They used the dft data, subsequently shown to be wildly inaccurate, to try to justify the plans, even though the lived experiences of those within the new LTNs was that traffic was very light.The result was traffic chaos, massively increased congestion, including on some LTN roads, and a concerted campaign of misinformation, manipulated data and outright lies from the council. They couldn’t prove any of the claims made about pollution or traffic evaporation. All they did was mobilise a lot of residents to protest against the schemes, scaring Labour into changing leader and removing most of the LTNs just ahead of an election year. They are now being watched very carefully.TfL’s accident data shows a drop across London. Nothing to do with LTNs but probably more to do with traffic being slowed to almost walking pace in many areas. And the majority of accidents involved buses, lorries and vans, which indicates that that larger vehicles rather than cars are the issue.A bit rich if you to dismiss counter arguments as ‘bad faith’ when your entire world view us so utterly skewed. Your supposed stats about South Parade have already been proven to be based on false data.You ought to understand that London doesn’t just belong to you and the LCC.

Simon Hayes ● 1361d

Perfectly put Simon.

Mark Talbot ● 1361d

I will tell you when the real revolt starts like back on the  31 March 1990. It starts when the ULEZ charge changes to pay and drive for all whatever your car or circumstances. And that is when everything esle gets re-evaluated.

Julian Pavey ● 1361d

Simon, I take it you don't understand basic statistics otherwise you wouldn't have posted a link to the Single File article. That truly was nonsense, even if you do not have the competence to recognise it.However, it I find it difficult to believe you can't understand that statistics released in September 2020 cannot influence a decision made two months earlier. So in repeating your claim that DfT minor road counts were used to justify the introduction of LTNs in Ealing you are only further demonstrating your bad faith in addition to your limited competence.You claim "TfL’s accident data shows a drop across London. Nothing to do with LTNs but probably more to do with traffic being slowed to almost walking pace in many areas. And the majority of accidents involved buses, lorries and vans, which indicates that that larger vehicles rather than cars are the issue." You're simply making this up. If you look at last year's injury report, https://content.tfl.gov.uk/casualties-in-greater-london-2021.pdf , you will see that total casualties on London's roads are up in 2021 compared to 2020, and cars continued to be involved in the majority of these collisions, in 57% of fatalities on London's roads, 68% of serious injuries and 64% of minor injuries."Your supposed stats about South Parade have already been proven to be based on false data."What are you referring to?  Did you make that up as well? There is indeed a "campaign of misinformation, manipulated data and outright lies", but it's coming from you.

Tom Pike ● 1361d

D’oh. Pay attention Pike. You do exactly what you accuse me of, comparing 2020 stats with 2021. As usual you cherry pick your data and adapt it to suit your argument.No bad faith on my part. I have the information from Ealing sent to residents to justify the LTN schemes and great play was made of so-called rat running on residential streets.You really do follow the LCC playbook to the letter. Quote ‘studies’ that don’t bear relevance to the subject. Adapt statistics to suit your purpose. Dismiss other arguments out of hand. Ignore anything you don’t agree with.It’s your competence that’s in question. You know you used numbers about South Parade to justify an argument when those numbers were from a specific day that was entirely unrepresentative. Or are you too incompetent to recall what you claim elsewhere?

Simon Hayes ● 1360d

Simon, the original revision by the DfT that showed an increase in minor-road traffic came out in September 2020:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/916749/road-traffic-estimates-in-great-britain-2019.pdfThat's two months after Ealing announced introduced their LTNs in July 2020, which you subsequently stated were in response to the DfT minor-road counts. I'm sure LBE cited ratrunning in justifying the introduction of the LTNs, but that's not what I took issue with but rather your false claim regarding the DfT statistics while you ironically claimed I was restating "false facts".  As for the South Parade traffic counts, my point was that the vast majority of traffic heading down from South Parade was travelling to the High Road, not Bollo Lane. In fact it turns out 94% of that traffic is heading to the High Road from the data I first examined.  You claimed that number were "suspiciously low" and suggested I cherry picked a day to prove my point. I just had a look back at the data, and there is a second day of traffic counts, a weekday, and that gives exactly the same 94% value: https://www.ealing.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/17103/12_chiswick_pk_stn_and_fishers_lane_jtcs_29_apr_2021.xlsmEvidently you are more interested in making false claims, or repeating others false claims, to try to bolster your position rather than basing your views on the evidence.

Tom Pike ● 1360d

The hope was that discussion wouldn't revert to arguments that have been gone over many times which revolve around different interpretations of inadequate statistics but that seems to be forelorn.The question that it would be good to have answered is whether or not it is sound policy from a public health perspective to concentrate pollution in particular residential areas. It may be that it doesn't matter that much, given the general improvement in emission levels from road vehicles so even the highest readings for harmful gases and particulates  have a limited impact. The people who would be able to give some insight on this are not those with a fixed mindset about the merits or otherwise of LTNs but those who suffer from respiratory conditions or who care for those who do.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1360d

It's not the statistics that are inadequate but it's the grasp of them. The answer is there just not the one you like. 

John Hall ● 1359d

Okay. Let's just accept for now that whichever side of the debate you support is categorically proved to be right by the available data. We can put that discussion aside now and address the question I've raised about the public health aspect. Here, sadly, we don't have good statistical data to work on because roads to which traffic is being diverted haven't had monitoring points installed. That's why it would be good to hear about the experience of people with respiratory conditions and what they think.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1359d

I'm lucky enough not to have any respiratory illness so can't really answer your question directly but, as a contact lens wearer, I do have the ability to make a very crude measure of air quality. If I walk by a busy road with lots of pollution, eventually I start to experience discomfort in my eyes. If it is really bad I have to take my lens out. Up to about five years ago, I'd generally wear glasses if I was visiting Chiswick High Road.  This steadily got better, I would guess mainly due to a reduction in the number of buses and an improvement in their emissions and the year before lockdown I could happily walk up and down the High Road without a problem. Over the last year or so, I have noticed the problem with my eyes recurring again. It isn't anywhere as bad as it was a decade ago but it is worse than it was pre-lockdown.It is only a minor annoyance for me but if this experience is mirrored by someone with a lung condition we need to stop and think.

Francis Rowe ● 1359d

Jeremy, there is no need to have air quality monitors covering the entire area; this can be modelled using traffic data.  See map based upon 2016 measurements. If you are of the opinion that concentrating pollution along certain roads is unfair, then that would imply that the 75k-100k vehicles per day using the A4 should be more evenly distributed. So what about doubling traffic along Chiswick High Rd to 25k and other roads need to share the load as well, so there should be 5-10 times more traffic than there is at the moment along routes like Wellesley Rd. Clearly that is a nonsense, which illustrates the flaw in your thinking. You can either believe that all roads are the same and it should be a complete free-for-all for drivers, or, there is a difference between different types of road and it is a responsibility of Highway Authorities to manage traffic based upon a hierarchy. The A4, A316, S Circular are part of a defined network called the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) and I believe each borough will have a defined principal road network within the borough as well.  This will be approximately aligned to the 'A' road network but not exactly.  For example, Wellesley Rd is probably still listed as the A3000 in some maps and that won't be part of the Hounslow principal road network. The basic principle adopted by the Highway Authority is that traffic should stay on the principal road network as far as is practical.  So there is no way traffic should be cutting between two TLRN roads (A316, A4) along roads that aren't even part of the Hounslow principal road network although how this is done isn't a simple question. If you are concerned about public health, then the focus should be on reducing the number of polluting vehicles in the first place, not juggling with the road network. And even if every single vehicle on the road was zero emission at the tailpipe, you are still left with the challenge of managing the road network and large volumes of traffic are simply not appropriate for roads not designed for it.

Michael Robinson ● 1359d

Michael, no one is suggesting putting air quality monitors everywhere just on roads where there is clearly an extra risk of exceedance of legal limits such as the top end of Burlington Lane, Sutton Court Road and Acton Lane. Modelling from 2016 data isn't going to give answers because traffic patterns have changed significantly. This may not be necessary if occasional exceedances do not present any extra risk to health. This is a question that hasn't really been answered on this thread but it must be wrong that we are implementing policy without understanding the health impact.If the negative effect on people with respiratory conditions is greatest over certain levels of concentration of pollutants, then the primary aim of policy should be to avoid this happening. Therefore directing traffic to already highly polluted areas isn't sensible.The designation of roads as part of a Principal Road Network is practical but should not override other considerations. It certainly should not negate the right of people living on those roads to good health.I appreciate that some roads aren't equipped to handle a high volume of cars but if a road has reached the limit of the amount of traffic it is carrying, then that traffic does need to be dispersed. How this is done obviously needs careful thought through but the danger with the current system is that we are seeking to banish traffic from 'nice' neighbourhoods and move it to areas where the people behind these policy changes would never consider living.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1356d

Jeremy, I was showing the 2016 map as an example. A model done now would clearly use more recent traffic survey data, of which there is lots.Traffic patterns now haven't changed that much putting aside what happened during the pandemic.  The most polluted part of the area is clearly beside the A4 and from DfT traffic counts (site 46121 near Hogarth roundabout), 2019 average daily traffic was over 100k while in 2021 it was 85k.Changes of plus or minus a couple of thousand vehicles on other roads won't mean a significant difference to air quality.  Just a thousand vehicles per day may be too many for some roads, but the issue here is one of safety and disruption of quality to life to residents on the road.  A thousand vehicles per day won't produce enough pollution to get close to health limits - you need the 10s of thousands of vehicles per day on road like the A4 for that.  You are ignoring the other disbenefits of too much traffic along residential streets.You still have no solution about what happens to the almost 100k vehicles per day on the A4.  Claiming it should be dispersed to other roads is nonsense.As for "if a road has reached the limit of the amount of traffic it is carrying, then that traffic does need to be dispersed", that is just reflecting the dinosaur "predict and provide" policies of the 60s and 70s as typified by the ring way project mentioned on another thread.If the road is congested, then tough shit for the drivers - they should choose another time or another mode of transport, they don't get to rat-run through residential streets.  Given £17B has been spent on Elizabeth line running parallel to the A4/M4, nothing should be done to increase capacity on the road network.

Michael Robinson ● 1356d

I do get LTN’s what I don’t get is why the local residents can’t also use the local LTNs? If we take Chiswick as an example we have grove park/SOTG with empty roads and the rest of Chiswick residents have to use heavily congested local roads which makes no sense. The technology is there already so why can’t local people living in Chiswick postcodes be allowed to use their local empty roads? Local traffic is not going to cause any air pollution issues in the LTN’s the word I want to use is balance. In London areas which are highly populated local residents have little option other than to use heavily congested roads to move around their local area because of LTN’s and this makes no sense to me on any level. Happy New Year

Jayne Thorburn ● 1356d

It's good to see more Click and Collect points eg from the Coop for items bought online from other shops.  The number of large vans (however clean they are) racing around making deliveries of small packets of indulgent next day whims and fancies to individual addresses is ridiculous.The question of what should be called residential is something being pushed by the climate change denying self-indulgent change resisting libertarian clique just like the greatest noise about cleaner cars is from those who may find they have to rethink their lives and change their plans and priorities.  We all have to do that sometimes to some extent when situations change as we age.  When did life always go exactly to plan?

Philippa Bond ● 1356d

Michael, the problem is not the congestion it is the resulting pollution. If it is reaching the level that is causing a serious health problem for people living nearby then you can't really say 'tough shit' for them.I think you are being a bit complacent about the impact of adding thousands of cars to a route. Even though it may not be large in percentage terms as a proportion of existing traffic, they could make a significant difference to the number of times a road is operating over capacity and therefore becoming severely congested.Crossrail hopefully will make a difference but commuter traffic may not be that significant through Chiswick and there are pressures operating in the other direction such as local population growth and an explosion in deliveries. I understand about induced demand but these issues are very complex and you can't simply continually repeat a mantra and call it a solution. Sometimes it is necessary to accept that ways to increase road capacity need to be considered.At this stage I don't think it is possible to identify solutions because we don't really know the nature of the problem. If there is no significant health impact at these hotspots then the congestion is something that we, literally, can live with. If not, a rethink may be needed.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1356d

'The question of what should be called residential is something being pushed by the climate change denying self-indulgent change resisting libertarian clique'Phillipa, would you like to expand on this claim? To me it seems gratuitously offensive and reflective of a desire not to have a reasoned debate on this particular issue.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1356d

"At this stage I don't think it is possible to identify solutions because we don't really know the nature of the problem. If there is no significant health impact at these hotspots then the congestion is something that we, literally, can live with. If not, a rethink may be needed."Jeremy, we know rather more about the effects of pollution that you are suggesting. In particular there is no recognised threshold level for health damage. The legal limits are there to enforce action where the risks are most significant, but keeping below those limits does not mean that health impacts are insignificant. In fact as many more people suffer pollution at lower levels that the legal limits the aggregate costs of ill health are much greater. We also know quite enough to be confident that traffic needs to be fall to reduce the health costs of pollution, and that requires a combination of restrictions on driving and improvement of the alternatives. It's certainly very difficult to see how increasing road capacity per se can be part of any solution.

Tom Pike ● 1356d

So Tom we can all agree its a problem and that we need less traffic. But as many posters will tell you we are seeing traffic diverted by CS9 and LTNs onto already busy roads. Michael seems to think as traffic 'should' be there it doesnt matter. But given as you state we know the harm that traffic and congestion does in terms of pollution seems astonishingly uncaring to ignore the impact of this.More pollution monitors in W4 were promised but have they ever arrived? We dont know what the problem is unless we measure it.So we need to look at solutions that reduce overall traffic volumes, not least the stream of commuter traffic into London every day. With Crossrail open this is the perfect time for an enlarged congestion charge. We also need to look at measures then to encourage these commuters to use public transport, taxes on office parking spaces a good start but also better transport to and parking at commuter stations. We cant just move traffic around and pretend its all OK. Cycling may make a contribution but more accessible and affordable transport as well as more of a stick to dissuade commuters is the only solution that will work.

Bill George ● 1356d

And your next argument will be that anywhere you want to go is local!

Philippa Bond ● 1356d

Nothing wrong with discussion and debate - it is most important but on twittersphere you will find the same gripes and grumps selected, repeated and circulated ad infinitum by a small group and you'll see what I mean.

Philippa Bond ● 1356d

Jeremy, your solution is equivalent to saying that the cure for obesity is the person should let their belt out so they can eat more rather than go on a diet.The only way to reduce pollution from vehicles is reduce the number of polluting vehicles.  You will not reduce the number of polluting vehicles by building more roads, will you?Any decrease in congestion will be marginal and temporary as the roads will fill up again, as they always have in London where demand will always be more than supply.By the way, there isn't local population growth in Chiswick.  The age profile is older, so fewer kids, not the migration you see in other areas and really not that much new development. That is why the ward boundaries were redrawn to take in parts of Brentford because the Chiswick councillors were representing fewer people than wards elsewhere.

Michael Robinson ● 1356d

Rather than send me off on an errand, why not take the time to explain why you have chosen to post in this manner?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1356d

Actually no, local people should be able to use their local roads full stop, I say again the word balance comes to mind we don’t seem to get that.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1356d

"But as many posters will tell you we are seeing traffic diverted by CS9 and LTNs onto already busy roads."Traffic on the A4 in Chiswick was down 25% in 2021 compared to prepandemic levels and the High Road saw an even larger comparative reduction."...given as you state we know the harm that traffic and congestion does in terms of pollution seems astonishingly uncaring to ignore the impact of this."I'm certainly not ignoring the impact of the traffic measures. Pollution levels on the High Road have been measurably lower compared to the three years before the pandemic. Pollution across the five species monitored averaged 71% of prepandemic levels in 2022, compared to 65% in 2021 and 69% in 2020 - it looks like we have locked in the improvement seen on the High Road during the pandemic.Of course it would be good to have more pollution monitors, but pollution levels are mainly dependent on traffic volumes and those volumes are down overall in Chiswick. So while I agree moving traffic around doesn't achieve very much, that's not what's been mainly happening. There's little evidence to claim that C9 and the LTNs have led to increased pollution, either based directly on pollution measurements or indirectly on traffic volumes.

Tom Pike ● 1356d

You're just trying to kick it into the long grass because both 'local' and 'balance' would have to be decided and no doubt you'd want to argue to have your own way over those definitions too.

Philippa Bond ● 1355d

There is also the danger of becoming so self-absorbed that you lose sight of the bigger picture:https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/climate-change/causes-of-climate-change

Philippa Bond ● 1355d

Yawn. Do you really think LTNs combat climate change? You’d be better off lobbying for the closure of Heathrow airport. Or do aviation emissions not count.And on ‘balance’ and ‘local’ you are correct that they are subjective, but then so are the arguments about ‘essential journeys’ and all the other supposed benefits of closing roads. People still have to get around. People still want their Amazon deliveries and supermarket shopping brought to their doors. Perhaps those people ought to be re-educated as well and forced to go on foot or by bike to whatever the nearest shop is to take those unnecessary vehicles off the roads.

Simon Hayes ● 1355d

Domestic transport emitted 99 million tonnes of CO2 in 2020 compared to 118  million tonnes in 2019 and is the largest emitting sector of the economy. More than half of domestic transport emissions are from cars.Aviation emitted 15 million tonnes of CO2 in 2020 compared to 24 million tonnes in 2019. Cars alone now emit more than three times the CO2 of aviation.Both emissions obviously count so the third runway should be officially cancelled (is there any real prospect now?) and people should drive much less in terms of their personal transport. If the wealthiest third of Londoners drove the same amount as the less wealthy two thirds, we'd reach our emissions targets for London in 2030 with a reduction of 27% in car mileage.

Tom Pike ● 1355d

The madness is that local people are drinking further and getting stuck in congestion so if you want to use the climate change argument it makes more sense for people living within a local area using postcodes which is not difficult would drive less distance and would help to reduce congestion. That’s what I mean by balance. People still need to drive it is not possible to walk everywhere or cycle for many people. Why is everything so extreme…..

Jayne Thorburn ● 1355d

It’s so incredibly stupid for this Council to be implemented LTNs when there are far better ways to reduce pollution. LTNs simply increase pollution hugely on arterial roads and we all suffer.  This council needs to concentrate on REAL issues and get rid of the brain worm that is so perversely feeding on cycling and LTNs.  Nobody is fooled by their nonsense. “ Wood burning in homes produces more small particle pollution than all road traffic in the UK, according to revised government data.The new data significantly cuts the estimated proportion of small particle pollution that comes from wood burners from 38% to 17%. But wood burning pollution remains a “major contributor” to particle pollution, another government report said. Road transport is responsible for 13% of particle pollution.”

Steve Taylor ● 1355d

In news today....However this is Camden and clearly nothing that works in Camden could ever possibly work in Chiswick, ever.In 2022 we trialled traffic-reduction measures on & around Murray Street/Camden Square.

The results are in!

- Motor traffic on local streets AND main roads are down 54% & 17% respectively
- Cycling is up 11% on local streets
- NO2 levels are down at all 7 monitoring sites pic.twitter.com/NlOPU5A0Gj— Adam Harrison (@AdamDKHarrison) January 4, 2023 In 2022 we trialled traffic-reduction measures on & around Murray Street/Camden Square.

The results are in!

- Motor traffic on local streets AND main roads are down 54% & 17% respectively
- Cycling is up 11% on local streets
- NO2 levels are down at all 7 monitoring sites pic.twitter.com/NlOPU5A0Gj— Adam Harrison (@AdamDKHarrison) January 4, 2023

Michael Robinson ● 1355d

"Aviation emitted 15 million tonnes of CO2 in 2020 compared to 24 million tonnes in 2019. Cars alone now emit more than three times the CO2 of aviation."Yes, lockdown on international travel in 2020 due to Covid restrictions had a massive reduction on 2019 figures. It is disingenuous to compare Car CO2 against aviation CO2 when aviation travel was affected FAR MORE than car travel during Covid lockdown.

Steve Taylor ● 1355d

Not often I find myself agreeing with Steve but comparing the fall in Aviation emissions across these two periods seems suspect. I would presume that CO2 emissions from aviation have increased since 2020 - wouldn't you expect the same Tom?

Andrew Jones ● 1355d

The irony of people flying on their hols to the Maldives and other low lying destinations probably escapes them. Aviation contributes 2.5 percent of all global emissions. The whole UK produces about one percent. Pretty obvious where an immediate reduction could be made.

Simon Hayes ● 1355d

It seems that the CO2 emissions of a long haul flight and a medium sized car per passenger per km are about the same at around 160g.  Short haul and domestic flights emit proportionately more, while a car carrying more than one person is proportionately less. Train travel is the least polluting (after walking and cycling), particularly over long distances and if powered by renewable electricity, with Eurostar rated at 6g per passenger km.See https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint

Peter Evans ● 1355d

You appear to think you've spotted a "Gotcha!" against Tom Pike by pointing out that aviation travel was less in 2020 than 2019 - as if we didn't all know.But quite aside from the fact that Tom openly provided the respective figures himself, you appear wilfully to ignore two other elements of his post, namely:1) Pre-Covid Domestic transport emitted  118  million tonnes in 2019 versus 24m tonnes for Aviation in the same period i.e. x5;and2) Tom also specifically opined that Heathrow's 3rd runway should be cancelled officially.Therefore this exercise in Whataboutery ("Tom criticises cars but ignores planes") fails miserably.

Richard Cathcart ● 1355d

I gave figures for both 2020 and 2021 precisely because the latest numbers for 2021 are going to be affected by the pandemic! For both years emissions from cars were considerably higher than for aviation, 2.9 times in 2019 and 3.6 times in 2020. I would expect in 2021 the multiple will be somewhere in between, but that doesn't make much difference to the relative contribution.It's certainly odd for Simon to suggest that we're better off shutting down Heathrow completely rather than tackling the emissions from our cars that are five times larger. We need to cut emissions from both, and LTNs could achieve a significant proportion if they were rolled out widely.The figures Michael posted from the Camden LTN give a 26% reduction in traffic counts, that's both on the boundary roads (17%) and inside the LTN (54%). Simon dismisses LTNs as giving a significant reduction in emissions, but if other schemes achieved the same drop in traffic volumes across the UK, that would amount to an 18 million tonne reduction in CO2 just from cars. For comparison Heathrow's share of UK emissions was about 13 million tonnes of CO2. In fact we already know that such reductions are consistently achievable. These latest Camden LTN figures are very similar to the traffic reduction reported for three different LTNs in the paper published by Imperial researchers last month, 58% inside the LTN, 13% outside. These are encouraging results in terms of suggesting a viable way to cut our share of CO2 emissions.

Tom Pike ● 1355d

Grow up you muppet. There was no whataboutery. Simply pointing out that aviation is a major contributor to emissions. Certainly a few road closures around Chiswick won’t make any difference. But then you probably know that.

Simon Hayes ● 1354d

Totally agree with your sensible, rational posts, Simon.  Wonder if all those who are advocating LTNS etc for environmental reasons are vegan and don't drive cars of any description (as all current fuels contribute to negative climate change).  If not, they are total hypocrites.

Claire Moran ● 1354d

Car emissions are falling. They will continue to fall as more electric vehicles replace ICEs. Car ownership in London has plateaued. What’s grown is the number of journeys generated by online shopping, much of which is done via diesel powered vehicles.I don’t advocate ‘shutting down Heathrow completely’, so get your facts right. I simply pointed out that Phillipa should look beyond blaming every car owner for perceived failure problems. As should you.Your LTN figures are suspect to say the least. Your solutions aren’t really solutions other than for desk jockeys like yourself.

Simon Hayes ● 1354d

These LTN's are a right pain in the arse. My elderly mum lives in Grove Park and after work some days on my way home  I will pop in just for an hour or so and my younger brother does the weekly shop for her too. This was fine before this nonsense started it only took about 10 to 20 minutes to get there now it can take anything from 30 minutes to an hour and half depending on traffic.    Why can't LBH put up no access to A4/M4 signs or no motor vehicle except for access at these junctions and the people that want to get to to places within these zones can do and the so called rat runners that ignore the signs can get fined. It would only need a few cameras in the right places.

Brian Green ● 1354d

That’s the obvious solution but not one the anti car lobby wants. The LTN ‘solution’ simply shifts problems elsewhere, making life particularly difficult for delivery drivers and tradespeople who need access to the area.

Simon Hayes ● 1354d

“Transport became the largest emitting sector in 2016. This follows large decreases in energy emissions as the UK switched away from coal power and towards gas, while transport emissions have remained relatively static.”That’s from the government’s latest report on emissions which came out earlier this year.There was a 19% drop in transport emissions in 2020 after 30 years of very little change, but that one-off reduction from COVID has to be both first locked in and then we need a further drop of 10% to reach our 2030 target. The evidence is building that LTNs are delivering consistently on that target. In contrast you are offering evidence-free claims at best combined with assertions that are simply not true.

Tom Pike ● 1354d

SH:"Grow up you muppet."RC: Dear me, you clearly have no idea why that is funny lol!Perhaps you might get a grown up to explain it to you?SH: "There was no whataboutery."RC: That is PRECISELY what it was i.e. "Motor transport? What about Aviation?"SH: "Simply pointing out that aviation is a major contributor to emissions"RC: No-one, including Mr.P, has ever denied that it is. Rather the point is that it constitutes one fifth of that of motor transport. Meaning that even if you banned aviation entirely, it still wouldn't solve the emissions problem without action on other major causes of emissions. Which quite obviously include motor transport.SH:"Certainly a few road closures around Chiswick won’t make any difference."RC: On its own, it won't solve the worldwide problem of emissions. But if the world is to get a grip on this, you cannot permit an exemption for every selfish 4 x 4 driver who demands to drive wherever he likes, whenever he likesMeanwhile, it WILL make a difference to air pollution in the areas whose roads have been closed.But then you probably know that.

Richard Cathcart ● 1354d

Richard, we should be grateful to Simon for demonstrating so effectively why we need such measures to reduce our driving in the first place.  His argument that anything we might do in Chiswick will have a negligible effect on worldwide emissions could just as well be applied to the taxes he pays to support the NHS - they’ll hardly help put much a dent in their backlog either. In both cases, whether it be personally contributing to our emissions reductions commitments or our health service, if everyone adopted Simon’s attitude we are left with no action on climate change and no funding for the NHS.It is precisely because of people like Simon that we can’t rely on an NHS funded by donations or a policy on reducing emissions, or pollution or road-injuries, based on voluntary reductions in driving. The question now is what measures are most effective in reducing the amount we drive, not whether those volumes need to be reduced, and on that score the evidence from LTNs is strengthening.

Tom Pike ● 1354d

The longer LTNs are in place the clearer their benefits become. The more LTNs that are in place the more benefits will accumulate. The evidence mounts. The antis have no evidence to counter it. Just angry blather. Watch many Councils follow Camden's lead. They have no choice. They have no other answers. Oh and cycle lanes too of course.

Paul Campbell ● 1354d

Hi Richard, to be honest I wasn't really sure about the point (or points) that Tom was trying to make in his post where he quoted the figures for 2019 and 2020.Was he putting a the emphasis on total Aviation CO2 emissions being lower than road based transport? Or something else? I thought (and in hindsight this might be wrong) he was trying to contrast percentage changes in emissions between 2019 and 2020, hence my post.Grateful to Tom for answering my question about where he thought 2021 emissions might lie.

Andrew Jones ● 1354d

“ you appear wilfully to ignore two other elements of his post, namely:1) Pre-Covid Domestic transport emitted  118  million tonnes in 2019 versus 24m tonnes for Aviation in the same period i.e. x5;and2) Tom also specifically opined that Heathrow's 3rd runway should be cancelled officially.”Not really because pre Covid is not really relevant to what is happening today where it is generally accepted that since Covid restrictions were lifted, EV sales have soared as people replaced diesel and petrol vehicles with electric vehicles. On point (2) Tom was merely stating the obvious and most sensible people in west London would totally agree with him. I certainly do so I didn’t feel it  necessary to comment. But to be clear - yes I agree 100% with Tom regarding Heathrow extension. Of course there will be thousands who want the runway to go ahead because they hope to gain employment and business opportunities. Certainly Hounslow Council wants the runway to go ahead because they want to support their key voters whose livelihoods depend on a flourishing Heathrow.

Steve Taylor ● 1354d

“Meanwhile, it WILL make a difference to air pollution in the areas whose roads have been closed.”Yes it will. It will make a difference to the few people who live in LTN roads as the pollution is diverted, and made much worse, for the THOUSANDS using and living on arterial roads. But then you probably know that.  Oh, and it’s pointless comparing a few roads in Camden with the increased pollution caused by diverting traffic in W4. TW8, TW7 etc. Think about Chiswick Bridge area, the A4 and Twickenham Road to name just a few

Steve Taylor ● 1354d

"...it’s pointless comparing a few roads in Camden with the increased pollution caused by diverting traffic in W4. Think about Chiswick Bridge area, the A4 and Twickenham Road to name just a few."These three roads had lower traffic levels in 2021 compared to prepandemic volumes:Chiswick Bridge: 16% down2019: 38,4842021: 32,322A4:  23% down2019: 96,7742021: 74,141Twickenham Rd: 4% down2017: 20,8762021: 20,126Given you accept that traffic is down within the LTNs, and it's measurably down on all the three roads you specifically listed, maybe it's time for you to start supporting LTNs as reducing pollution appears to be your primary concern.

Tom Pike ● 1354d

Tom, for clarity can you confirm the dates of these counts in 2021. Given that there were periods in 2021 that were significantly impacted by the pandemic. As was noted on the air traffic emissions discussion and also for some of the data used in the Steer report, comparing pre COVID with COVID impacted travel patterns doesnt tell us much.

Bill George ● 1354d

"These three roads had lower traffic levels in 2021 compared to prepandemic volumes:"Yes of course they did; because we were in lockdown so people worked from home. It is totally disengenuos to compare 2019 with 2021 and assert that the levels reduced due to LTN's. They didn't - they reduced because of the pandemic and they are STILL reduced because of the pandemic and many people continue to work from home. The 2021 figures would have been further reduced on arterial roads if LTNs weren't in place and pollution on arterial roads would have reduced further but that isn't what you want is it? You seek only to reduce pollution for a selected few who live in LTNs.

Steve Taylor ● 1354d

The lockdown dates for 2021 are significant when considering vehicle count.https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/timeline-coronavirus-lockdown-december-2021.pdf

Steve Taylor ● 1354d

Traffic in London in 2021 was 9% below both 2017 and 2019 levels according to DfT traffic counts. The TfL figures also give exactly the same difference for 2021 as well as providing a figure for traffic for each day. The actual traffic flows on these three roads was 14% lower averaging by road, and 19% lower on total traffic counts. That's very similar to the reduction seen for the boundary roads for both the Islington and Camden LTNs.The Chiswick Bridge and A4 counts are from automatic counters that operate continuously, so the annual averages directly calculated by DfT can be compared to the average annual figures for London. Clearly both saw a larger drop in traffic than London as a whole, so there is no evidence of traffic being displaced by LTNs to these locations in Chiswick, rather the opposite in fact.I noticed that Twickenham Road actually has automatic counts for 2020 as well as a manual count for May 20 2021. We can therefore directly compare the counts seen on Twickenham Road to the TfL average for 2020 and the traffic in London on the same day of the count in 2021 after the LTN was introduced. The TfL figures give a 12% increase reflecting the return of traffic to London by May 2021 from the levels in 2020. The Twickenham Road figures give a 10% increase, so 2% less. That's too small to be confident that's a real reduction from the LTN, but by the same token it offers no support to any claim that the LTN displaced traffic to Twickenham Road. Introducing the LTN seems to have had no significant effect on traffic on this boundary road.The claim that LTNs just displace traffic to the boundary roads seems to be more an article of faith than based on any evidence, and certainly that's the case for the three roads Steve chose that he rather hoped would prove his point.

Tom Pike ● 1354d

It's worth adding that traffic across Chiswick Bridge actually fell by 3% between 2020 and 2021 while it rose by 11% in London and 13% in both Hounslow and Richmond boroughs. Rather than increase traffic on the boundary road, the Hartington restrictions coincided with reduced traffic crossing the Thames into Chiswick.That should not be surprising as the removal of the ratrunning route across Grove Park would have discouraged traffic from crossing Chiswick Bridge in the first place. It's just the same effect that led to the fall in traffic on South Parade after Fishers Lane was closed.Similar considerations would explain the fall in traffic on boundary roads seen for the LTNs in Islington and Camden. It's also consistent with the simple fluid-flow model of traffic: placing a boulder in a stream not only directly prevents flow through its volume, it significantly slows flow around it and overall leads to a reduced flow rate for the stream.

Tom Pike ● 1353d

That is a factual counter-narrative to the constant evidence-free argument that the closure of Hammersmith Bridge has increased traffic on Chiswick Bridge. I hope these true believers in the car keep putting forward their evidence-free convictions to you Tom because it is always interesting to see the real facts when they motivate you to research them.

Paul Campbell ● 1353d

Tom, There is an increase in congestion on South Parade since Fishers Lane was closed causing greater pollution for those living close to South Parade or exercising in the park. You can quote whatever fall in traffic numbers you manage to extrapolate from whatever data but that isn’t on the ground congestion the closure has caused. But of course you know that and hence your careful use of selected words.

Mark Talbot ● 1353d

Paul, independent of any effects from Hammersmith Bridge, a differential reduction of 16% of traffic in one year on a major artery into Chiswick is extremely significant. The traffic counts for all of the other major roads though Chiswick, the A4, Chiswick High Road, the North Circular or Kew Bridge Road don’t come even close to such a relative reduction in over two decades. And of course that means we collectively suffer from less pollution.And there’s really no doubt what has caused this: the restrictions on Hartington Road have simply meant fewer drivers choosing to use Chiswick as a rat run, as the traffic counts there confirm. As the data comes in from around London, other boroughs are sure tofollow suit.

Tom Pike ● 1353d

Less traffic going through means less pollution.  We have a pollution monitor on the High Road that proves precisely that with pollution levels in 2021 and 2022 little different from 2020. If you want to observe massive pollution, put a monitor beside a free-flowing motorway.

Tom Pike ● 1353d

More directly, Ealing looked at the bus running times along South Parade after Fishers Lane was closed and saw no deterioration. “Route 94 journey times (Acton Green to Abinger Road and vice-versa) reduced significantly during the first lockdown, increased slightly as restrictions eased in August 2020, and remained constant during the 2021 lockdown. All journey times remain faster than the baseline figures. Reductions are typically 5-10%, but in the pm peak, westbound, the reduction is much better at around 13% or 36 seconds. Comparison with the E3 doesn't suggest significant delays on South Parade.”

Tom Pike ● 1353d

A few thoughts. Mainly this is a complex topic and traffic patterns are very dynamic. Narrow focus on one boundary road tells us little, for clear evidence we would need to see traffic volumes across a broader area as traffic will reroute. The Camden example seemed to look at one boundary road, which was noted as one mainly used to access the residential cut throughs, so the question is where has this traffic gone and what impact does that have.There is an awful lot of focus on COVID impacted traffic and bus data. 2020 and 2021 saw significant disruption to life, no matter how often these stats are trotted out they tell us little about current realities. Tom always quotes the one pollution monitor in W4, where we know that the bus gates and closure of Fihsers Lane plus changed light phases have restricted vehicular traffic on central CHR. So of course pollution is down here. But in the absence of other monitors on still congested roads in W4 we have little idea.For those that use the A316 in 2022 both pre and post the A4 works the reality has been more congestion and queues northbound. Changes to light phasing at the Hogarth to accomodate more A316 turning left onto A4 also seem to add to A4 queues and delays at peak times. So you dont need more traffic on the A4 to get more congestion, and some of that traffic diverts into W4.This is where the challenge of interpreting traffic volumes vs congestion is tricky, queues of traffic are recorded as lower volume than in freer flowing conditions. Roads at or close to capacity can quickly become very congested if small numbers of vehicles are added. Tom, if you can point us all to the source of the traffic data you use it would be helpful, 2022 data will be interesting if available.

Bill George ● 1353d

"As the data comes in from around London, other boroughs are sure tofollow suit."In the meantime we have an interesting experiment developing with 6 boroughs in West and South West London.On the one hand we have the vehicular free market libertarian Councils of Kensington, Richmond and Twickenham, Ealing and Wandsworth following a policy of free movement for private cars on all streets above all other interests.And on the other hand we have Hounslow and Hammersmith and Fulham pursuing a socialist interventionist policy of exercising their executive authority to manage traffic and prioritise the interests of people not in private cars. With their own takes on how to do that most effectively.Of course the libertarians will discover that they are not immune to the decisions taken by those around them as opening their arms to rat running drivers will inevitably attract more of them to use their residential streets to cut through between London's main road arteries like the A40 and A4. So they will get more of what they want. We'll see how long they stick to their libertarian principles. I think Wandsworth will be the first to crack.

Paul Campbell ● 1353d

Emissions in the UK are falling. Emissions in the rest of the world are riding more quickly, largely due to industrial processes in China, which is building more coal fired power stations to service its factories.Closing a few roads in Chiswick or even all over London won’t save the planet, despite what you believe. Maybe cutting down your consumption of mass produced goods, including all the tech in your homes would be a start.Nice bit of gaslighting there Pike about the nhs. You like to make things up don’t you? It’s why your ‘stats’ are so untrustworthy.And Cathcart is equally ignorant. Motorists are an easy target, yet I wonder how much of his behaviour he has amended to reduce his carbon footprint.

Simon Hayes ● 1353d

The reality is local people should be able to drive in their local area and if we had a tiny bit of creativity it would be possible to achieve and keep everyone would be happy other than commuters. Take Brian’s situation he should be able to visit his mother without having to spend an hour plus because of an LTN to get there. Local councils don’t appear to be able to think things through from all aspects and find a sensible solution.

Jayne Thorburn ● 1353d

Local authority transport policy in most London boroughs is pushed by the LCC (Oh how those cycling zealots on here will deny this, but it’s true). The LCC view private cafe ownership as a ‘tyranny’ from which all Londoners should be freed, irrespective of circumstances.One wonders if the average LCC member’s mental development stopped at the age of eight. It would certainly appear so.

Simon Hayes ● 1353d

"The LCC view private cafe ownership as a ‘tyranny’ from which all Londoners should be freed, irrespective of circumstances."I look forward to the new Peoples Cafes where the racist "Flat White" is banned along with the culturally appropriated Cappuccino.  Earl Grey is obviously out for being elitist and so is Yorkshire Tea because All Proper Tea is Theft.

Ed Saper ● 1353d

Tee-hee-hee!

Philippa Bond ● 1353d

SH: "Emissions in the rest of the world are riding more quickly, largely due to industrial processes in China, which is building more coal fired power stations to service its factories."RC: Not sticking up for China, but as was pointed out on the radio the other day, China also built more wind turbines in 2021 than the whole of the rest of the world in the previous five years.Meanwhile, we in the UK are blocked from building inland wind turbines  by the usual Nimbys - this time in the countryside.SH: "Closing a few roads in Chiswick or even all over London won’t save the planet, despite what you believe."RC: This is not what I believe. In fact it is the exact opposite of what I expressed in my last post.SH: "And Cathcart is equally ignorant. Motorists are an easy target, yet I wonder how much of his behaviour he has amended to reduce his carbon footprint."RC: I MOT'd my 15 y.o. but ULEZ-compliant small car in November just past. It registered a total of 1,990 miles for the year, at least half of which was accounted for by a handful of long journeys outside London which were not feasible by train etc.In fact for just about every year I've owned it my car mileage has gone progressively down, to the extent that in the colder months, I now sometimes have to find a good reason to  make a short journey to keep the battery charged after the car has been parked up unused for a week or two.This reduced mileage is due to (a ) increased congestion on London's roads, including by those who could, but won't, use alternatives to private cars; (b ) the Congestion Charge for central London, (c ) route restrictions and (d ) the cost and difficulty of finding parking spaces.Of course I don't expect a medal for only doing what many other motorists are doing, nor do I object to the above inhibiting factors, since I try to see the Bigger Picture.But neither should I expect to be rudely harangued by a boor who knows nothing about my personal circumstances. Except that in SH's case, sadly that is exactly what I expect, since that is his clear modus operandi when assailing anyone who disagrees with him.

Richard Cathcart ● 1353d

Be honest, Ed, you only posted in order to get that gag in (justified, as it happens, since it is a good one).Which reminds me of one morning when I was in a restaurant in Minsk and couldn't make head nor tail of the menu.I asked the waiter if they had any English Breakfast tea, he went off to find out and came back to announce that they had "Early Grey"Anyhow, back to the Satanic LCC and their evil plan to make Chiswick uninhabitable and tyrannise its people through the medium of LTN's

Richard Cathcart ● 1353d

You clearly are as stupid as you come across.

Simon Hayes ● 1353d

‘Harangued by a boor’?That’s exactly what you, Saper, Pike and particularly Campbell do to everyone on this forum, ad infinitum. You presume to know everyone’s circumstances and why they do or don’t do things, then castigate them if they disagree with you. You are not just a boor but a stupid one too. You should get a medal for that.You think wind turbines are made by pixies at the bottom of the garden? The production process requires extreme high temperatures generated by coke burning. You silly little twerp.

Simon Hayes ● 1353d

Thought we were talking about South Parade not CHR?

Mark Talbot ● 1353d

About time you 2 go and get a room.

Mark Talbot ● 1353d

Looking at the bridges on either side, there is no support for the suggestion that traffic simply rerouted due to the Hartington restrictions. Counts increased by less on the nearest bridges than the next nearest, and for all bridges the percentage traffic increase is significantly less than seen in either Richmond or Hounslow as a whole: You claim we have "little idea" of pollution levels in the absence of monitors even if we know the number of vehicles travelling on our streets. But you are stating quite the opposite when you said "of course pollution is down" on the High Road because of lower traffic, and the monitor readings confirm that this time you are correct. 

We do indeed have a pretty good idea of pollution levels on the basis of traffic counts, and there can be little doubt that fewer vehicles travelling across Chiswick Bridge has helped improve our air quality. Furthermore there is no sign that has come at the expense of simply shifting the pollution across neighbouring bridges up or downstream.

Tom Pike ● 1353d

The traffic counts are all from https://roadtraffic.dft.gov.uk, while the daily levels for London come from the TfL’s latest travel report. DfT traffic counts for 2022 will come out in September. Ealing has a site on the Fishers Lane statistics here:  https://www.ealing.gov.uk/info/201176/cycling/2915/fishers_lane_closure_to_motor_traffic_except_busesThere have also been various foi requests to TfL that provide data on bus running times and traffic flows on the High Road.

Tom Pike ● 1353d

Simon, I’m sure you are just as clever as you come across.

Tom Pike ● 1353d

You got some ‘stats’ for cleverness Pike? Maybe a graph? But I am very well educated, thanks. Feel free to presume something on my behalf that’s absolutely wrong, which seems to be your default position.What I’m not is wedded to a dogma that excludes most of my neighbours or indeed anyone else.And you?

Simon Hayes ● 1352d

If there are people out there who think the AA is a shadowy organisation that secretly controls the government with a mission to ban bicycles, then one has to wonder if their "mental development stopped at the age of eight"?By contrast, anyone who thinks that the LCC is a shadowy organisation that secretly controls the government with a mission to ban cars is "very well educated, thanks".

Ed Saper ● 1352d

“Feel free to presume something on my behalf that’s absolutely wrong”Ok, Simon, given your vehemence on this point, I’m willing to accept I was wrong to presume you’re as clever as you appear. Can we at least agree on that?

Tom Pike ● 1352d