Forum Topic

LTNs and car use

Guaranteed to provoke a healthy (or not so healthy!) debate! See interesting report published in the journal Transport Findings: https://findingspress.org/article/75470-the-impact-of-2020-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-on-levels-of-car-van-driving-among-residents-findings-from-lambeth-london-uk

Robert Fish ● 1195d64 Comments

THis is a lot of effort to tell us very little. A modest decrease in distance driven inside LTNs versus a modest increase outside (net swing of 6%). The most obvious and fundamental flaw is that it contrasts miles driven during a period with no lockdowns and 'normal' life (defined as March 2018 to 1st March 2020) with a post LTN period (defined as March 1 2021 to March 1 2023) where there were still significant COVID impacts, especially in all of 2021 and the first half of 2022. T.GIven this COVID impact, when people were rarely socialising, generally WFH, limited internation travel, limited big gatherings etc, its amazing that distance travelled didnt fall significantly in all areas. The little isse of COVID continues to be ignored and makes all of these studies pretty pointlessThe other noticeable thing, which is of course ignored, is that the number of vehicles with parking permits in the areas studied went from just over 18k to nearly 20k, an increase of nearly 10%. So apparently LTNs encourage people to own more cars. Who would have thought.

Bill George ● 1195d

Correlation does not equal causation.The report effectively assumes that the entire reason for the, admittedly rather small (3.4%) decrease in driving in the LTN is the effect of the LTN.Given that roughly 50% of vehicles in the areas studied were excluded for various reasons and of that 50%, roughly half (or 25% of the total sample) were excluded for being too new there is the possibility that this has introduced a level of variability that is not being considered - this variability could be increasing or decreasing the actual KM/day figures - the authors have not considered it. A perfectly plausible scenario which would explain the results is that of the 6% of households who owned more than one car, if they bought a new car and massively reduced the daily mileage of the old car that would have a disproportionate effect on the overall daily mileage.And those are the issues with the report I could see in less than 10 minutes.I will qualify my post by saying I was only reading the findings of the report on the TfL website.  It may be that there is a fuller report that deals with some of the obvious problems

Justin Stephenson ● 1195d

Oh no, not another “Statistics Wrestling Match”.

Russell Pearson ● 1195d

One further factor which would completely skew the data...One of the key points in the findings was that average daily mileage went down in the LTN but increased slightly in the control areas - which are areas more than 200m from an LTN boundary.If the LTNs prevented sufficient numbers of residents taking their normal daily driving route and forced them to take the long way round then the existence of the LTN has artificially increased the average daily drive for people in the control areas.Essentially what that means is that the report's conclusion that the existence of the LTN decreases driving by residents of the LTN compared to the control group is not supportable based on the methodology of the report

Justin Stephenson ● 1195d

In the Red Corner, the “Magnificent Extra Terrestrial Professor” and in the Blue Corner “Giant Haystacks Fish” to fight the ‘Straw Man Wrestle of the Century’.

Russell Pearson ● 1195d

Justin, the reason the authors compared the area within the LTN to a control area outside was precisely to minimise the effect of common factors such as COVID. There's no support for your claim that they are ignoring variability - their approach is designed to highlight the variability due to the car-owning households being in an LTN.The scenario you offer for a drop in mileage recorded at MOTs, that some households bought new cars and then stopped using their old cars, may very well occur. But it hardly provides an explanation as to why the drop in mileage due to such a scenario would only be seen only within an LTN.And on your further point, that the increase in the control group mileage might be down to the LTN ignores the fact that the households nearest to the the LTN, and therefore most likely to avoid the restrictions in their road access by driving longer routes, saw no increase their their mileage.

Tom Pike ● 1195d

The research only covers four LTN's introduced in 2020, hardly a robust sample I'd suggest

Peter King ● 1194d

Standard chain reaction:1. Scientists perform a study that evidences that the standard principles of induction and its opposite usually manifest exactly as expected  in reality i.e. reduce space for cars and you get less driving2. Unqualified laypeople against road space change hastily scan through the study to try to find sound reasons to deny the evidence, rubbish the study and discredit the scientists3. Tom Pike patiently explains to them why they are wrong

Paul Campbell ● 1194d

The study included the mileage from around 2000 vehicles within the four LTNs.  That’s a large enough sample to be able to show a statistically significant reduction in mileage in the LTNs compared to the control area. It would nevertheless be worth repeating the study on more LTNs in other areas though  this paper demonstrates a novel approach that shows that in this case, at least, that one objection to LTNs, that they in general only cause people to drive further to bypass the restrictions, is not supported by the evidence. Further work may be able to isolate what are the factors that provide the most effective LTNs, where the overall reduction in traffic is maximised. In contrast, there is plenty of evidence that providing greater traffic capacity leads to more driving. In fact that was the standard assumption of “predict and provide” that thankfully was abandoned before London was completely wreathed in a series of ring roads:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Ringways

Tom Pike ● 1194d

Tom: And on your further point, that the increase in the control group mileage might be down to the LTN ignores the fact that the households nearest to the the LTN, and therefore most likely to avoid the restrictions in their road access by driving longer routes, saw no increase their their mileage.That is not what the report states.  Table 2 which deals with their entire sample shows that average daily mileage INCREASED by 0.3 km for the near LTN households (and control area residents saw driving increase by an average of 0.6 km)I would however highlight table 3 which deals with a subset of the data - for "stable households" only - which shows that Near LTN residents reduced average daily driving by 0.3 km.  That subset was used to test a specific hypothesis namely there was resident self selection (namely that households that drove a lot sold up and left) and I think it demonstrates that reasonably well but that is as much as the authors of the report were prepared to use that subset, so I am respecting their decision.Coming back to table 2 and the INCREASE in daily driving by Near LTN residents, that could be as a result of having to take the long way round to their destination but there could be a multitude of other reasons.  Similarly the control group increase in average mileage could be as a result of the LTN forcing longer journeys or it could be that people are driving more generally, or any number of other factors.I stand by my original post.  The report demonstrates a clear correlation between LTNs and slightly less driving but it does not show that LTNs are the cause.

Justin Stephenson ● 1194d

There is no statistically significant increase in the area near the LTNs, while there was in the control area further away. That is quite the opposite of what would be expected if the LTN caused households to drive further because of the restrictions. I agree that the paper did not prove causation, but neither did the paper claim that proof. It is not possible to prove causation on purely a statistical basis, only that the observations are highly unlikely to be simply due to other random effects, in this case quantified as a 1% probability. If the results were the opposite, I would have been quite willing to accept that these LTNs were not effective, irrespective of any proof of causation.What we can say is that those within the LTN drove statistically significantly  less than those in the control area after the LTN was introduced, and that there is no evidence that the LTN caused those closest to it to drive significantly more.

Tom Pike ● 1194d

Lets take a step back from all the various assumptions. So, firstly as Tom and Michael have made clear, LTNs are designed to make it harder for residents within the areas to drive. Reduce access or exit points and other restrictions within an area. So it would be quite astonishing if they didnt to some degree achieve that.Secondly, the data covers the pandemic but neither the author nor Tom mention it. Who would have thought that all cycle lobbyists seem to be COVID deniers, yet a global pandemic that altered daily life for all of us is not worth a mention.THirdly, the approach used relies on vehicles being owned throughout the period of study. So around half of the total vehicles in the area are excluded as there is no usable data. So lets set this aside and see what happened. So yes, measures aimed to make it harder to drive did see a modest around 3% fall in distance driven. Whilst this may be deemed statistically significant it is also very small.However, it becomes interesting when looking at other area. Tom has told us that distance travelling by car is falling in london, so why is it going up in Lambeth outside the LTNs? And as to the control group, Tom says, his option, that the increase in distance driven was greater in the control areas that are slightly furhter away was 'quite the opposite of what would be expected'. But this assumption by Tom is quite likely completely false. Google maps will often offering differing routes that diverge in some significnat manner, it is quite possible indeed likely that such mapping apps would avoid the whole area of LTNs due to possible congestion around them. In which case, that would suggest LTNs are indeed promoting drivers to travel more distance. The counter argument relies on a narrow focus on boundary areas, where there may indeed be more limited impact as some journeys are made to different locations rarther than attempting to circum navigate the LTNs.So we have a very modest fall in traffic in an LTN, but an increase in distance for the control area a relatively small distance away. There may of course be no causility here, but equally there may be.The final point, utterly ignored by Tom, is the very significant increase of 10% in vehicle registrations in the study areas. Which goes against wider London trends. So the most obvious conclusion is that LTNs encourage car ownership.

Bill George ● 1194d

Bill, it would be helpful if you stuck to what I wrote rather than make up your own version. I explicitly mentioned the pandemic and how the study accounted for it, so your claim otherwise is demonstrably false. For those just outside the boundary, geometrically half of their driving directions are cut off by LTN restrictions. That geometrical constraint inevitably reduces as you move further from the LTN. Of course the actual effect depends on the road network, but you end up having to make a very convoluted case if you want to argue that for some reason the LTN has an increased effect on driven mileage with increased distance from the LTN.Yet  you do more than that, you claim that on the basis of your unevidenced and overly complicated construction that the straightforward explanation, that LTNs reduce rather than increase driven mileage, is “probably false”. And you end up with again ignoring that I had already mentioned, that the reported increase in vehicles is only for those taking MOTs, not new vehicle registrations which fell in Lambeth as a whole. All the evidence is therefore consistent with fewer new vehicles leading to an aging distribution of cars. The fact that you are resorting to misrepresenting or ignoring what I said, and introducing what are in effect unevidenced nonlinearities in the response of mileage to distance from LTNs.Simply the study provides evidence of what one would hope an effective LTN might achieve. It should give those who claim to oppose LTNs on the basis that they only increase mileage pause for thought. In contrast, opponents who have an ideological prejudice against LTNs will instead deploy just the arguments you have made.

Tom Pike ● 1194d

Tom, its not 'overly complicated' to assume that people a short distance away from an LTN may indeed travel slightly further as either an individual's concern about congestion in an area or a mapping app that makes that decision diverts them around an areawith numerous LTNs rather than directly skirting it. I think that would probably mirror many people's real world experiences. People have posted on here about choosing to shop in Richmond for example rather than W4 due to LTNs. Those that are nearer and do have half of their directions cut by LTNs may simply change destination for some of their travel rather than choosing to go around the LTN. For those that are further away the actual impact is as you note more modest, so they may choose to maintain the same travel pattern even on a slightly longer trip as the overall change is limited. Again you are making all kinds of assumptions about individual behaviours and travel choices based on your own perspective.So including new vehicle registrations do you have data showing total number of active permits for these areas over time? THat would be helpful. As for COVID, its a huge surprise that given lockdown and other restrictions all areas did not show a reduction in milage driven in the post LTN period. It certainly had a huge impact on many aspects of life so does unfortunately raise a fundamental question of what can be concluded from data in the time period. The study shows a very modest fall in distance travelled in an area that has gone to great lengths to make it harder to drive. Did we really need all this huffing and effort to show the blinking obvious. It also seems to be in contrast to some other studies recently that have shown increases in distance travelled by residents in LTNs. But what you dismiss as 'unevidenced nonlinerearities' is a quite feasible interpretation of real world behaviour.

Bill George ● 1194d

A quick follow on re the impact of COVID. I can't find 2022 data for London, but 2021 data showed for London a 9% fall in miles driven for the year vs 2019. There is provisional data for the UK overall for the quater ending Sep 2022, which showed still a 5% fall in total miles driven versus pre COVID. So the London and national backdrop is one of a clear falls in miles driven, of larger magnitudes to that observed in the LTN study area. And this in turn raises the question as why distances driven have increased outside the LTN area, in contrast to broader London and national trends.

Bill George ● 1194d

Standard chain reaction (continued) :4. Paul "Humpty Dumpty" Campbell chimes in with an attack on those disagreeing with the study. The problem is, as he uses words to mean just what he chooses them to mean, it can be difficult to be sure of what he actually means.

Richard Greenhough ● 1194d

Bill, it is straightforward to understand why the effect of an LTN on driving mileage reduces with distance from the LTN. However, to rescue your prejudices you have resorted to introducing an additional effect, that those living closest to an LTN see a smaller effect on their mileage than those further away. But your explanation contradicts itself: it claims that people in the control areas further away maintain their existing routes because of the marginal effect in mileage by skirting the LTNs when in fact they are the only group that sees a statistically significant increase in their mileage: such loose reasoning has, to be kind, little explanatory power. In fact there is a much simpler explanation as to why there might be a tendency for an increase in the average mileage driven by the older vehicles recorded by MOTs, even if overall car mileage is falling: older vehicles are simply a growing proportion of all vehicles and therefore on average a smaller proportion of daily miles goes unreported at MOTs.  That is just one of the reasons why such studies rely on the differences from a control sample, in this case the area further from the LTNs: it can take into account  the change in vehicle age profile, and the resulting effect in mileage recorded at MOTs, which is clearly not a direct result of the LTN.

Tom Pike ● 1194d

Tom: "There is no statistically significant increase in the area near the LTNs, while there was in the control area further away. "That is complete nonsense.  The change in average daily mileage for the near LTN was almost 2% (1.97%) for a sample size of 1352-1658, that is statistically significant.  Indeed the report makes it expressly clear that the change is significant and not by chance.Tom: I agree that the paper did not prove causation, but neither did the paper claim that proofIn fairness that is mostly true, the conclusion of the report is carefully worded to imply that LTNs are the cause but not actually stating it.  What the report actually states is "This suggests that, in Lambeth and other similar inner-city areas, widespread roll-out of LTNs could make an important contribution towards reducing how much residents drive, and towards reducing local volumes of motor traffic."That conclusion is only true if the creation of the LTNs is an important factor in why people reduced driving

Justin Stephenson ● 1194d

Oh dear Tom, this is not going well. Its not straightforward its merely your interpretation. As with bridges you see all journeys as necessary in specific directions. But people can change, so what may impact human behaviour is the magnitude of the impact. As you note those nearerst the LTNs see the largest impact on route options, so if a 5 minute journey in one direction becomes a 10 minute one, then within this new time frame other options become available. For someone a bit further away, a 10 minute journey becoming a 12 minute one on a slightly longer route to avoid the LTN ara may still be the preferred option. Of course both your narrow interpretation and my own are mere assumptions. You dismiss mine because they dont suit your own agenda.Would be interesting for you to comment on the wider issue of milage falling during COVID in both 2021 and 2022, and why two of the areas under study are showing increased milage and indeed the LTN shows less of a decline than these broader trends.

Bill George ● 1194d

Justin, the paper actually cites the standard error in the change in distance driven for the area nearest the LTNs, which was 0.3±0.5 km. While this is an increase in distance, this includes the possibility there was no change within the standard error of the measurement. The repeat analysis looking at the "stable" households gives a similar result: -0.3±0.9 km, this time a slight drop but again not discernible from zero within the standard error. You have simply misread the paper if you are trying to claim otherwise.

Tom Pike ● 1194d

Bill, given I have already answered your questions, but you are seemingly unable to understand my response, there is little point in my repeating it.

Tom Pike ● 1194d

No, you havent answered them, please dont hide behind some intellectual facade to pretend otherwise.Please address the issue of broader traffic declines across London, which you have not addressed at all.

Bill George ● 1194d

No, Bill, you need to actually read and understand what I have written before demanding I repeat my response:I said: "Justin, the reason the authors compared the area within the LTN to a control area outside was precisely to minimise the effect of common factors such as COVID."You said: "the data covers the pandemic but neither the author nor Tom mention it. Who would have thought that all cycle lobbyists seem to be COVID deniers, yet a global pandemic that altered daily life for all of us is not worth a mention."I said: "In fact there is a much simpler explanation as to why there might be a tendency for an increase in the average mileage driven by the older vehicles recorded by MOTs, even if overall car mileage is falling: older vehicles are simply a growing proportion of all vehicles and therefore on average a smaller proportion of daily miles goes unreported at MOTs."You said: "Would be interesting for you to comment on the wider issue of milage falling during COVID in both 2021 and 2022, and why two of the areas under study are showing increased milage and indeed the LTN shows less of a decline than these broader trends."Again, if you can't understand what I have written, there is little point in my repeating it.

Tom Pike ● 1194d

Tom, I understand what you have written. I am asking a more fundament question as to why traffic patterns in the study area seem to differ so clearly from broader trends. From my earlier post:'I can't find 2022 data for London, but 2021 data showed for London a 9% fall in miles driven for the year vs 2019. There is provisional data for the UK overall for the quarter ending Sep 2022, which showed still a 5% fall in total miles driven versus pre COVID. So the London and national backdrop is one of a clear falls in miles driven, of larger magnitudes to that observed in the LTN area. And this in turn raises the question as why distances driven have increased outside the LTN area, in contrast to broader London and national trends.'Any thoughts welcome.

Bill George ● 1194d

One key issue here is that Tom is applying an approach from physical science to social science. The result is a naive Positivism. I’ve mentioned this before. Tom ideally should be aware of what this means, and the risks. Aldred certainly is - she’s read her Frankfurt School.

Russell Pearson ● 1194d

Just a reminder that Tom and Paul do not reflect the views of the vast majority of people:- https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-are-a-policy-disaster-lj8df5ppk?fbclid=IwAR1M2ETpd4EwrHZIwucKg_hZwg01S80ihR9yYjM0li0V9DygeuQ-MeKvWOshttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/06/09/enough-of-sadiq-khans-ulez-eco-posturing/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12167319/Ministers-wasted-billions-pounds-taxpayers-money-LTNs-says-watchdog.html?            fbclid=IwAR36L1yOIEqjqKf1O7odK8JOmNSNzCvwNQ6N9uiHxDCj957a1MTk40ivi8s  https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/opinion/columns/23581499.oxford-ltns-45-seconds-delay-we-cannot-afford/?fbclid=IwAR0nA17q0Lz2uzveGKjpTvd06ZWMDI5EsO8TcsbtRqmEU6hLcFonA5Cj--Ihttps://news.sky.com/story/cyclists-in-italy-to-be-forced-to-have-insurance-number-plates-and-indicators-under-new-law-12899343?fbclid=IwAR2LbGS-SnIK3lXf_shdc6o5FvxqVSMSfZrYLSmqn9_T1xA6EGnaToIIp10https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/23573714.ltn-impact-report-leads-growing-calls-resignations/?fbclid=IwAR3iVEilJmQNACB4XLzP1Ec24F9Zr_8Ck8zJ_xWAvwC_ToUMIXYNV-igpi0https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-65778065?https://www.facebook.com/groups/753257535975917/user/100064718049161/utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=news_tab&fbclid=IwAR03wqY4Ueythc3ueHA8pmDRrBYbhfqTcewghYdVUpnRfr6qeKoVhjBzClw

Claire Moran ● 1194d

Spot on Claire !!!

Loraine Pemberton ● 1193d

Tom the report is a classic example of statistical slight of hand.The report compares the LTN and Near LTN to a control group.  The purpose of the control group is to test the null hypothesis namely that the changes in driving averages in the LTN and Near LTN households were a product of chance when compared to an area unconnected and unaffected by an LTN.  That means your control area needs to be unconnected and unaffected by the LTN. In this case there is no evidence that the control group is unconnected and unaffected nor any methodology to ensure that, in fact it is the opposite because of the closeness of some of the control group to LTNs (in some case 201m away but a lot would depend on normal driving routes of the control group) it is highly likely that an unknown proportion of the control group are directly affected by the LTN.That is not a proper control group - it is the equivalent of doing a medical trial to test safety of a drug where you have one group take a full drug dose, a second group taking a 50% dose and the control group rather than being given a placebo instead get a 20% dose.  That is just a bad methodology. I admit I am not a fan of using p- values, especially when there could be a number of factors influencing the data, but that is also the opinion of a large number of professional statisticians.  There are several other tests, well beyond my mathematical competence, which are more useful when there are potentially several variables which influence the data.Based on the actual data all we can say with a high degree of confidence is that the pre v post average daily mileage shows a difference in each of the 3 groups which is probably statistically significant for that group.  I would go further and state that the differences between the groups are potentially significant, especially for those households in the LTN, but what we cannot why nor can we conclude with any confidence that the differences are down to the existence of the LTN.

Justin Stephenson ● 1193d

Tom, I will defer to Justin whose knowledge of statistics is clearly stronger than mine, but I agree with his point and in particular the probelm of the proximity of the control group. You dismiss the idea that the LTNs could have any impact on the journeys of those in control groups has no basis. The LTN areas were presumably selected in part due to volumes of through traffic, so removing this would impact a number of journeys many of which would have originated outside the immediate boundary area. My point here is that you robustly denied my comment that vehicle ownership had increased significantly in the study areas, with the report showing a 10% increase in vehicles. You claimed that it was because the study only looked at older vehicles that had MOTs. However, this is in fact a basic error and failure to read the report. The report clearly states that 'Among cars/vans with an active permit as of 1st March 2020, we identified 8575 cars/vans in scope for our analysis of ‘pre-LTN’ mileage'. As made clear in table 2, the analysis starts with the number of 'active parking permits', a figure that did indeed increase by 10% between March 2020 (18.2k vehicles) and March 2023 (20k vehicles). This universe is then reduced as vehicles that did not have MOT data were removed (the majority of which were described as 'too new for sufficient MOTs').You asserted that the study only had vehicle data for older vehicles with full MOTs, and that:'the reported increase in vehicles is only for those taking MOTs, not new vehicle registrations which fell in Lambeth as a whole. All the evidence is therefore consistent with fewer new vehicles leading to an aging distribution of cars. 'But as I demonstrate above, the data started with the total number of parking permits, not the number of vehicles with MOTs. Your second point that this shows an aging distribution of cars is not supported by the data and another factual inaccuracy.Tom, the ease with which you both dismiss the reasoned views of others and then make robust statements that are not supported by, or in this case completely contradicted by the data is deeply concerning given the prominence which some people attempt to give to your views.

Bill George ● 1193d

Bill, as I said, the paper does not give numbers for new vehicle registrations so I took that from the DVLA data for Lambeth as a whole and that showed a 4% fall. You are correct that the  number of parking permits issued increased, but that will be both a function of the number of cars owned and the coverage and functioning of the schemes since 2018 to date. Whatever the cause, the number of permits issued increased the most in the control area outside of the LTN, which hardly suggests the LTN itself was the cause for new permits being issued.I based by comments on an ageing car profile on national figures, but the numbers on the paper also support this shift: while the total number of permits increased by 10% over this period, the number of vehicles that had MOT data increased by 20%, consistent with an ageing population.Taking together what we know from the DVLA about new vehicle registrations as a whole in Lambeth and what we know from this paper about the proportion of cars with parking permits that have MOTs, it supports my comment that we are looking at an ageing distribution of cars.Again you misrepresent what I have written. I have not claimed that households in the control area are unaffected by the LTN, just that they are less affected than those living within 200m of it. Indeed, Justin's criticism that a control group should be completely unaffected by the LTN, similar to those given a placebo in a medical trial,  is not realistic. The area of the control group would need to be far enough away from the LTN such that no trips were affected by it: the justified criticism would then be that the control group was no longer a good match to the group within the LTN. That would make it difficult to attribute any differences to the LTN itself.Justin's further comment that it can be stated "with a high degree of confidence" that the changes seen in all three groups are statistically significant ignores what the paper actually states, that the change seen in the boundary group was 0.3±0.5 km. You don't need a great deal of statistical knowledge to understand that this result is statically indistinguishable from zero.

Tom Pike ● 1193d

Tom, you are being completely disingenuous again. Your words were clear:'that the reported increase in vehicles is only for those taking MOTs'So please confirm, yes or no, was this statement accurate? We both know it was inaccurate, but seem incapable of acknowledging this. Classically you throw in lots of other guesses, such as whether the coverage and functioning of the schemes changed. I doubt that this was the case, but if it was then it would throw into question the reliability of the primary data source on which the entire study is based, namely parking permits and the comparability of such data between 2018 and 2023.

Bill George ● 1193d

Bill, I was referring to the figures in Table 2 that reports the "No. cars and vans  in the analysis" which includes only those which have MOT data. I can therefore confirm that my statement 'that the reported increase in vehicles is only for those taking MOTs' is completely accurate.As I said, you are correct that the total number of active parking permits increased, but that growth is not the same as the growth in the total number of vehicles in these areas. In fact I've confirmed that Lambeth introduced new CPZs during the period of the study that will have increased the number of vehicles included. There will always be underlying shifts that can produce changes outside of the effect of the LTNs themselves. That is why a control area has been used that will be less affected, not completely unaffected, by the LTN. If you are unwilling to accept this approach, then you are left with saying that the effect of the LTN is impossible to estimate either way. But that's not consistent with your previous endorsement of a cursory comparison of the affect of LTNs on traffic at a borough basis in the Times which had no controls and even ignored such basic characteristics as to whether the borough was inner or outer London. Your current criticism therefore only seems to apply because you disagree with the results of the analysis.

Tom Pike ● 1193d

What a load of far right rubbish!How about something more middle of the road and less algorhythm generated?

Philippa Bond ● 1193d

Tom, you continue to disappear down a rabbit hole of your own making. My initial statement was simple, namely that the number of vehicles across the study areas has increased:'significant increase of 10% in vehicle registrations in the study areas'. You then refuted this by saying the study only looked at older vehicles that had MOTs. I turn have demonstrated that this was false, that the analysis in fact starts with the universe of all vehicular parking permits and THEN narrows this down to those with consistent MOT data. Now, rather than acknowledge your error, you double down with some irrelevance about expanding CPZs. The whole rationale of the study is based on finding 3 areas with consistant CPZ and permit data on which to assess car milage. I very much doubt that there are significant changes in these CPZs, given it is not mentioned by the authors. IF there were, then again the whole basis of the study would be invalidated.This is really getting embarrassing. Take a step back and reflect on what you are trying to achieve here

Bill George ● 1193d

Bill, you continue to confuse active parking permits with vehicle numbers within the study areas. A 10% increase in active parking permits does not equate to a 10% increase in vehicles owned by households when CPZ coverage has increased and, irrespective of your doubts, it has.As the paper makes clear,  parking permits were used to provide the registrations in the first place to then select for vehicles with MOT data to give the mileage data that formed the basis of the analysis. Again you are quite wrong to claim I have ever denied this (indeed why would I?), as you have been quite wrong previously with claiming I ignored COVID or I stated that households in the control area were completely unaffected by the LTNs.It's rather pointless having any discussion with you when you misrepresent what I have said, and tedious to everyone when you just repeat your misrepresentations, so I'm leaving it there.

Tom Pike ● 1193d

Tom. Firstly, there is no evidence that the CPZ coverage area has changed in terms of the specific study areas, none. To compare like for like over time the authors would need to select similar areas throughout the period. CPZ permits are the starting point of the analysis. CPZ may have expanded in the overall area beyond the study segments but that is not the discussion here.Secondly, you are right in the narrow sense that permit issuance does not equate 100% to vehicle ownership, but its going to be close.I dont think the area has a lot of off street parking. If it does then that is yet another massive hole in the study as it excludes a lot of vehicles and we dont know what their driving patterns were.THere is no point discussing with you as you make clearly incorrect statements and then disapper into a further fog of pointless arguments. I have literally pasted your quotes and then explained why they are wrong.You realise your musings open up even greater possible flaws in the analysis? This debate exposes what you do, present flawed and biased data and then retreat into meaningless assumptions and then huff off.

Bill George ● 1193d

Bill,  I generally ignore your tiresome and somewhat obsessional attempts to argue with Tom Pike about everything, but on your claim  "Firstly, there is no evidence that the CPZ coverage area has changed in terms of the specific study areas, none.", 30 seconds on google showed that Lambeth extended the Streatham Hill East CPZ several times between 2019 and 2022 and this is within a LTN.I haven't checked all of the other CPZs extended by Lambeth.Neither it appears, have you.  There are dozens of CPZ extensions listed on Lambeth's website.  Please come back when you have checked them all.

Michael Robinson ● 1193d

So sorry you don't approve of articles that go against your ultra-left woke agenda Philippa.

Claire Moran ● 1193d

I haven't heard the BBC described as far right any time recently.

Mark Talbot ● 1193d

Why would you just put it down to far right rubbish? Do you have to make every aspect of our lives so political?  Just because people object to all the pollution caused by LTN’s doesn’t make them far right and as it’s been proven that LTN’s benefit only a few people, why is any article that reports as such, just rubbish ?

Steve Taylor ● 1193d

The BBC article is a neutral report on charges and fines from ULEZ. It's not about LTNs or whether scientists or the people on this forum who are implacably opposed to road space change and becoming increasingly unhinged about it are right about the most recent study of some LTN in south London. (Spoiler alert - the scientists are right).

Paul Campbell ● 1193d

Thank you Paul for correcting Philippa.

Mark Talbot ● 1193d

It just shows how the opposition has lost focus and perspective and lumps absolutely every single change (cycle lanes, LTNs, hire bikes, car sharing bays, clean air zones, electric vehicles) into one big bucket and screams at it. Same with the Just Stop Oil thread. People don't seem to know what they're actually protesting against because it's the same people getting upset about it who are on the anti-ULEZ and anti-everything Facebook groups for too much of their time.

Paul Campbell ● 1193d

Michael, the debate was not whether CPZs have increased generally in Lambeth, but whether there had been any cnages in the study areas. The report specifically says:'The north of Lambeth is covered by controlled parking zones, with residents requiring a permit for on-street car/van parking on their local streets. Lambeth Council provided us with numberplate plus home postcode data for active ‘resident’ and ‘disabled’ parking permits as of 1st March 2018, 1st March 2020, and 1st March 2023.'I am sure you can agree this statement is pretty clear and doesnt imply any change in the geographic make up of these areas. Changes in CPZ areas  would I expect then to have been called out by the authors, as it will bring different households into the study for the later period who could not have been included in the earlier period. This would raise questions over the comparability of the datasets used for the two periods.You are an intelligent person, please do tell me if my points are reasonable? If there is no change in the coverage of the CPZs then my observation that it is surprising to see a 10% increase in permits issued over the period also remains valid.Tom and a lot of his fellow travellers seem to be quite selective in their use of data and then very narrow in the conclusions they draw, bringing their inherent bias into the conclusions.I similarly Michael, ingore you tiresome efforts to argue obsessively about cycling, talk down the relevance of public transport and fail to reach any common ground with anyone who doesnt share your narrow focus. If Tom stops posting his reports and data with dubious conclusions, then I wont challenge them. Of course, this is a discussion forum... or should we just bow down and accept whatever you and Tom say?

Bill George ● 1193d

Michael, you are right that there have been changes in the CPZ boundaries in Lambeth, but looking into this more I don't think that explains the 10% increase in residents permits issued. As I said before, the increase was actually largest in the control area outside of the LTNs, so clearly this has nothing to do with the LTNs themselves. There is in fact a very good reason why households who already had cars but didn't previously need a residents permit applied them in 2020 - they changed to working at home rather than commuting and so their cars were parked on the street during the operational hours of the CPZ. This is confirmed by data released by Lambeth which shows a 12% increase in applications for residents parking permits in 2020, much larger than any change in previous years.I'm sure some will claim that this invalidates the entire study, but that would be to ignore the analysis performed. First of all, any shared effect will be mitigated by looking at the changes with respect to the control area, reducing the contribution of common factors such as this. In addition the authors performed a confirmatory analysis using only vehicles that provided a mileage both before and after the LTNs were introduced. This analysis further reduces any potential bias introduced by a change in the mix of cars that had parking permits. That second analysis gave an even larger reduction in mileage in the LTNs compared to the control areas, a drop of 2.3 rather than 1.3 km a day.The claim, based on an increase in parking permits, that LTNs themselves encouraged people to buy cars was never credible. It was simply another side effect of the pandemic.

Tom Pike ● 1193d

"please do tell me if my points are reasonable?"No they aren't.The statement you quoted simply means they gathered postcode and registration details for CPZ permit holders on the dates mentioned. There is nothing in the statement implying the CPZ areas were the same on all the dates.  Your belief that the areas covered by CPZs were the same on all those dates is disproved by simply looking at the Lambeth website.You can see the Streatham East CPZ was extended to cover various additional streets on:July 2018November 2019July 2020October 2022So it is simply a matter of record that the CPZs in this LTN were extended multiple times and pointless claiming they weren't.The increase in permit holders has a simple explanation - the number of households covered by CPZs and therefore requiring permits for cars parked on the street increased over time. The Lambeth website lists literally dozens of CPZ extensions over the last 5 years and a number of these appear to be in other LTN areas as well.

Michael Robinson ● 1193d

I suspect someone is spending far too much time getting their self-righteous undergarments (optional once a year on a bicycle) into a terrible twist, by seeing too many people online, disagree with his devout views.

Russell Pearson ● 1192d

Err, no, Paul. We are quite clear about the different schemes but they all have one thing in common. No benefits to the community and having severe adverse affectson that community apart from a few weirdos and imposed by silly little, mostly unelected petty clueless people against the wishes of the majority.

Claire Moran ● 1192d

“ No benefits to the community and having severe adverse affectson that community apart from a few weirdos and imposed by silly little, mostly unelected petty clueless people against the wishes of the majority.”Put simply - morons!

Steve Taylor ● 1192d

I’m very happy with the the people who disagree with my views on this forum. I’d struggle to curate a better parade of people who are unwittingly useful to my causes.

Paul Campbell ● 1192d

Was going to agree, but some just wouldn't get it 😉

Janice Evans ● 1192d

Regarding Just stop oil, if they are funded do you think those funding themshould take responsibility for them, I've always said people should be allowed to protest within reason, I think those protesting are suffering theconsequences by being locked up or put in danger, do you think they should be organised better.

Janice Evans ● 1192d

The donors of the fossil fuel lobby have no need to worry about being outgunned by any other donors for any other cause on the planet. They value their useful idiots on this forum in a different way to me.

Paul Campbell ● 1192d

They would.

Janice Evans ● 1192d

I'm not agreeing we are idiots of course as we are all contributors, justto explain clearly.

Janice Evans ● 1192d

Ultra left woke?  You are having a laugh!

Philippa Bond ● 1192d

Steve Bird at the Telegraph tried to make a similar “reasonable” argument back in 2021, claiming the increase in resident parking permits in Lambeth showed that rather than discourage car ownership, LTNs had the opposite effect. The source of this analysis was an FOI by One Lambeth.When vehicle registration data later came out it showed a fall in car ownership in the borough, though neither the Telegraph nor One Lambeth chose to highlight that. In fact car ownership in Lambeth has continued to fall and is now 5% below its peak in 2018.While the overall fall in car ownership in Lambeth cannot be attributed to LTNs that only cover a fraction of the borough, this does show the basic error that was made by opponents of LTNs in trying to blame the schemes for an increase in car use  based on an increase in residents permits during a pandemic.

Tom Pike ● 1192d

Who would have thought, so its possible to have an adult discussion about this and note there are multiple things going on. I am sure as you note Tom that timings of CPZs may have had an impact on the number of permits. Although again, these are basically gueses without more research. However, at the risk of incurring more attacks for daring to have an opinion, having different geographic areas from which people are drawn for the 3 study areas would question the findings. As it becomes in that case impossible to compare changes in driving habits for a specific area over time. I dont think its surprising that an LTN designed to make it harder to drive succeeds in reducing driving. THere is the final point of the backdrop of a significant fall in miles driven overall in London in 2021 and a smaller but still material fall in miles driven at the UK level in 2022. Which raises the question as to why miles driven are increasing in any of the study areas.

Bill George ● 1192d

They certainly value a load of kids racking up criminal records that when they eventually decided it’s time to get a job many employers won’t be too impressed with.

Mark Talbot ● 1191d

“ eventually decided it’s time to get a job many employers won’t be too impressed with.”Problem is that many of these protestors have no intention of ever getting a job. They are quite content to disrupt society and suck of the State for benefits.

Steve Taylor ● 1191d

Problem is some of them might grow up and decide they want a job like the majority of us and suddenly regret being led astray.

Mark Talbot ● 1190d

Loads of them are boomers like you lot. But good ones with a moral compass and a sense of social responsibility.

Paul Campbell ● 1190d

The behaviour of the protesters is truly immoral in the true sense! It’s also moronic to think they can change anything.

Steve Taylor ● 1190d

We are a dot on the globe, I fear they are all being led astray.

Janice Evans ● 1190d