Forum topic: LTNs Will Increase Pollution and Greenhouse Gases

The above is a description of why LTNs will increase pollution and Greenhouse Gases even with substantial traffic evaporation.
It shows how the 35% of car trips that are 2km or less represent only 5% of actual total traffic.
It shows that around 85% of traffic is doing a journey of 5km or more, averaging 17km per trip, none of which can be walked and little could be cycled.
It shows that even if you get rid of ALL the 2km or less journeys available for removal, you will increase pollution and Greenhouse Gases if you delay the 97% of remaining traffic by more than one minute by creating large LTNs and congesting it on the remaining roads.
It shows that to have any real impact on traffic numbers you have to persuade people onto public transport, which is likely to be subject to cuts.
And in case anyone has missed it, post #6271 under the thread “New chance to comment on Fox Lane LTN” shows that Transport for London do not believe there has been ANY increase in car traffic in London but there has been a small but steady decline since 1999. Other figures back this up.

Peter Payne has built a rather complex model of how LTNs work in his head (using some of the actual models experts use), while ignoring their conclusions, findings and selectively quoting them. I’ll simply point out that none of the many real-world low traffic neighbourhood schemes delivered across London either during the crisis or prior to it over decades, have delivered results like the ones Peter’s ideas would lead you to expect. No, pollution isn’t up on boundary roads where these schemes have gone in. In many cases, motor traffic volumes on nearby boundary and/or main roads has gone down significantly, not up. Peter’s model is one designed to come to one conclusion only – that LTNs are bad. Because that’s what Peter clearly thinks. But the actual real world data doesn’t agree with his views or his model. I’d urge you all to ignore Peter’s model, we’ll not be responding to it any more – because no doubt three days from now we’ll get a complex, mathematically minded take-down of everything I’ve said here. And that will still not actually match reality or real-world data. I’d urge you to ask yourselves why just about every transport modelling, urban planning and highways engineering expert takes a very different view to Peter’s .Go read academics like Prof Rachel Aldred’s work or go read practitioners’ research like Brian Deegan's. Then make your own minds up. We also note that Peter wants to reduce traffic but only has vague ideas about changing behaviours with no clear plan or evidence of whatever those ideas are working in practice. Several of us from Better Streets have spent a large amount of time debating these assertions over this year - we dont intend to repeat these debates next year. We also don't intend to give a running commentary on the whereabouts of individual members of Better Streets - though unlike several of the groups opposing LTNS we are open and transparent about who the key individuals are, despite that leaving us open to abuse, lies and intimidation online and in person. This is posted on behalf of the Better Streets team.

Peter Payne, you are spot on with your analysis. Anyone with any understanding of data and how traffic works would come to the same conclusion. This is very important to counter some of the false propaganda and misleading information put out there by LTN supporters like "35% of short journeys can be replaced by cycling" which we know is both false and unachievable and your analysis proves that. The council officers who unfortunately lack competence in true traffic analysis should also take note of this.

National press in the last few days has highlighted the imminent announcement of a several hundred million pound investment in LTNs and mini Hollands outside of London, a cycling and walking commissioner and a new inspectorate – Active Travel England.
Within London, efforts to reduce car usage and the associated pollution (climate and air quality) are reported as not progressing at sufficient speed hence the previously flagged contingency of dynamic road charging (based on time of day, location and distance travelled) is coming to the fore. Technically difficult, interim measures including eg an all London extension to the ULEZ are being considered.
I’ve never been a fan of dynamic charging with its implied tracking of individuals and its high risk of being of a regressive nature but it’s clear than the UK’s carrot and stick approach – make active travel easier, combined with making driving harder / more expensive – carries on at pace.
However the biggest eye opener to me was that a full two thirds of car journeys in London could be cycled in less than 20 minutes. It can take you that long to park a car in Crouch End.