Forum Topic

Nigel, as you didn’t actually look at the link to check if it confirmed your prejudices, here is the abstract of the paper:Evaluation of low traffic neighbourhood (LTN) impacts on NO2 and trafficXiuleng Yang a, Emma McCoy a,b, Katherine Hough c, Audrey de Nazelle c,d,a Department of Mathematics, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdomb Department of Statistics, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom c Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdomd MRC-PHE Centre for Environment and Health, Imperial College London, London, United KingdomTraffic restriction measures may create safer and healthier places for community members but may also displace traffic and air pollution to surrounding streets. Effective urban planning depends on understanding the magnitude of changes resulting from policy measures, both within and surrounding intervention areas; these are largely unstudied in the case of Low traffic Neighbourhoods (LTN). We evaluated impacts of three LTNs in the London Borough of Islington, UK, on air pollution and traffic flows in and around intervention areas, based on monthly Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and traffic volume data provided by the local authority. We identified pre- and post-intervention monitoring periods and intervention, boundary and control sites. We then adapted the generalised difference in differences approach to evaluate the effects within LTNs and at their boundary. We found that LTNs have the potential to substantially reduce air pollution and traffic in target areas, without increasing air pollution or traffic volumes in surrounding streets. These results provide sound arguments in favour of LTNs to promote health and wellbeing in urban communities.

Tom Pike ● 1212d

Tom, we go around in circles. Narrow studies produced by sympathetic groups. The billions for the economy that Paul was talking up was based on a small study commissioned by SUSTRANS and focused on one scheme in London and grossed up to a national figure. Its so flawed as to be laughable, as is the basic premise that people who walk or cycle spend more money. So if we banned motor vehicles tomorrow the UK economy would grow rapidly? Because that is the logical conclusion of these fantastical studies. Above all else it ingores the simple fact that most people use cars (or taxis), walk, use public transport or indeed cylce at different times depending on need. Similar studies on traffic impact are too narrow. Very selective inclusion of 'boundary' roads ignore that journeys may displace onto a wider area as other routes become more attractive. It is noteworthy that a new scheme in Southwark is being cancelled given acknowlegement they were contributing to delays and congestion, especially for buses. There seem also to have been an admission by some proponents that LTNs do not necessarily reduce total miles driven due to detours. Large areas of west London including parts of W4 seeing lots of displaced traffic today, seems due to multiple roadworks around Kew Bridge. A4 solid approaching Hoagarth due to volume of traffic turning down A316, with northbound up A316 also solid. Lots of traffic diverting off A4 into W4 as a result and onto the non-segregated section of CS9. One direct result of more and more restrictions is the road network becomes more vulnerable to disriptions.Until we address the volume of cars driving into London everyday then no amount of tinkering with local roads will address the problem. Better and cheaper public transport a key element.

Bill George ● 1212d

Fortunately, once you put an LTN in they become quite popular, if people pay any heed to them at all.That's because LTNs reduce traffic inside and usually outside the zone, which means less pollution and helps reduce greenhouse emissions.The overblown predictions of disaster are shown to be nonsense and those who made them are a self serving minority.You can drive into any LTN you want - no-one is a prisoner in their own home.  Quite the opposite, the roads are calmer and easier to drive, and much more attractive to walk and cycle as well.Once established the whole calculation changes - it isn't about restricting traffic anymore, but about opening minor roads to huge levels of inappropriate through traffic which will poison every single resident and likely result in the injuries and deaths of the most vulnerable: the very young and old.  The South Chiswick Liveable Neighbourhood is a great example - a tiny minority of people want to divert thousands of cars and lorries every day off the A4 and through Grove Park.  Even the people who opposed the LTN originally and those who wanted restrictions but opposed these ones because they felt them too restrictive, few of them want to go back to that.  Don't listen to the doublethink blowhards who want you to believe that reducing traffic on our roads somehow increases pollution and emissions.  They have no data, they have no coherent arguments, all they have is their close minded, self righteous anger at any traffic restrictions that might (but don't really) impact their ability to drive on any road, whatever the impact on other people.  Don't be fooled by how often they accuse others of selfishness or entitlement, it is pure projection, because you don't get any more selfish or entitled that someone demanding the right to poison others because that is the way it has been in the past, so that is the way it must always be.

Ed Saper ● 1210d

ST: "One can fully understand why the government needs to take an active stand against the anti car lobby and encourage more motoring and more car sales."RC: Just as no-one in the 'anti car lobby' seriously wants to ban cars, then none wants to ban car manufacture either. Rather, it is a question of restricting non-essential car usage (LTN's etc) and mitigating essential car usage (electric vehicles, ULEZ's etc).While your plea for more cars is plain silly, not just because there simply isn't room on our roads for same, but also as the obvious rejoinder to your accompanying call to "make motoring a pleasant and stress free experience".For fewer cars on the road must mean LESS congestion, pollution and delays etc, whereas more cars inevitably means MORE of those blights: i.e. the exact opposite of "pleasant" and "stress free".As for your call for "sanity to prevail", well all the evidence is that that is exactly what is happening, even if often underpowered and belated.For example, with "Our Future City Plan: Central Birmingham 2040", England's Second City envisages that Birmingham's city centre ring road will be transformed into a 'green way' as part of plans to double the city's cycle paths to 200km and its green spaces to rival those of Vienna.As such, they will make the city centre largely traffic free, prioritising cyclists and pedestrians, to help reach its target of being net-zero by 2030. Which is all the more praiseworthy when one considers that Birmingham was long the traditional heart of the British motor manufacturing industry!https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/downloads/download/3912/our_future_city_plan_%E2%80%93_central_birmingham_2040Of course you and your pro-car lobby must be perfectly  entitled to carry on your campaigning, if only because it seems to do you good to vent.But really, you might be better off had you the basic self-awareness to realise that you increasingly come across as just a bunch of old men (mostly) howling at the moon!

Richard Cathcart ● 1204d