Read on Twitter
https://twitter.com/Subversivite/status/1316277662562779136?s=20
@EmmaLYDS
@ediz1975
@EnfieldCouncil
@LittleNinjaUK
@EmmaLYDS
@ediz1975
@EnfieldCouncil
@LittleNinjaUK
Emma, I'd also urge you to look at the evidence for yourself, as I wouldn't be too quick to take Clare's view for what it shows. I came at this from the same place as you (concerned about timing and impact in a crisis) and found the ‘evidence’ far from reassuring. \\.1
There are three main issues with the evidence as it's presented by betterstreets and elsewhere.
(1) It begins with traffic evaporation, the evidence for which needs to be considered very carefully. \\.2
(1) It begins with traffic evaporation, the evidence for which needs to be considered very carefully. \\.2
Betterstreets link to the Cairns, Goodwin study. It’s the most comprehensive research and it should be read because it's used as the foundation for just about everything: \\.3 https://twitter.com/NormanC28839418/status/1291303005380390912?s=20
The study itself warns against assumptions about behavioural change, yet the rationale for the current LTNs disregards this warning, and embraces the belief that “traffic is like a gas” (rather than like water). \\.4
This seems to be the basis on which desirable consequences from an LTN are treated as a given - which seems ridiculous given that behavioural science is not really at all comparable to particle theory. \\.5
Based on the study, a generous estimate would be traffic evaporation of 15%. So 85% displaced to other roads. The obvious implications of which are frequently denied, although not by the study’s author: \\.6
\\.6https://twitter.com/Phil_Goodwin99/status/1303685788077625344?s=20
\\.6https://twitter.com/Phil_Goodwin99/status/1303685788077625344?s=20
2. Next is heavy reliance on evidence from Waltham Forest. And this is highly questionable. This is a comprehensive summary of why \\.7 :
…https://72b29da2-c608-4b0b-8a31-b846485ead3f.filesusr.com/ugd/10ac5f_6790cc35baf34ec4a303cb95dcbc02c7.pdf
…https://72b29da2-c608-4b0b-8a31-b846485ead3f.filesusr.com/ugd/10ac5f_6790cc35baf34ec4a303cb95dcbc02c7.pdf
For me this is the key point: \\.8 https://twitter.com/NormanC28839418/status/1292472833377996800?s=20
And these are crucial too: \\.9
https://twitter.com/NormanC28839418/status/1311248522436583431?s=20 https://twitter.com/PaulLomax/status/1297487505961476096?s=20
https://twitter.com/NormanC28839418/status/1311248522436583431?s=20 https://twitter.com/PaulLomax/status/1297487505961476096?s=20
3. Claims for positive impact on pollution are also based on questionable data from WF. This is a very good summary of reasons to treat it with caution. \\.10 https://twitter.com/PaulLomax/status/1298356355800104960?s=20
And this is worth adding. \\.11 https://twitter.com/simonjcalvert/status/1316142212783263745?s=20
Overall, the one significant certainty is that at least 85% of traffic, and the pollution it creates, will be displaced onto other roads. \\.12
I don’t claim a basis on which to judge impact in any area – but in #BowesLTN this will hit a high residency section of the A406 (on which there are plans to hugely expand dwellings) and other long-congested residential roads for which no remedial plan exists. \\.13
We're expected to believe this is the only way of improving the status quo, and that it's money well spent in an emergency, but it feels far more like an opportunity being squandered. And the only people in favour seem to be the few who are certain to benefit from the outset.\\.14
