Forum topic: New chance to comment on Fox Lane LTN

As these post become ever more encompassing I’ll tried to consolidate and condense my point of view down and keep this briefer whilst answering recent posts.
Karl I am not in the camp of “all traffic constraints should be removed” but have said repeatedly I am in favour of (continuing) reducing traffic, increasing active travel, including with cycle lanes (where appropriate and positively designed for all movements), but LTNs cannot add to this without increasing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

People were sold the idea of LTNs by suggesting private car traffic had increased massively over the last ten years or so and would continue to do so. My post #6271 shows clearly that TfL do not believe this to be the case in London. DfT did not believe this to be the case prior to the one survey (Minor Roads Benchmarking Exercise). All other external data backs up TfLs position. So my question to those promoting the LTNs is who do you believe?

People were sold the idea of LTNs by suggesting traffic will evaporate and things will settle down in a few months. This visibly hasn’t happened in over a year and a half, and my post #6213 shows mathematically why even with substantial or total removal of all available short journeys to other travel can only lead to greater congestion and pollution if you do it by large areas of road closure.

People were sold the idea of LTNs by suggesting there is a lot of evidence that they work and quoted reports such as the Cairns Paper, Waltham Forest report, the Kings report, and several papers by Rachel Aldred and I have shown on various posts on these forums how these are all deeply flawed scientifically and heavily spun so that what is reported is not what they say (#5964, #5973).

People were sold the idea of LTNs by suggesting that because 35% of all car trips are 2km or less that, although some are essential, removal of the 22% that could be actively travelled by fit people will lead to a significantly reduced traffic situation. My post #6246 shows that because the figure TfL doesn’t publicise (that the journeys for the third of cars travelling over 5kms actually AVERAGE 17kms+) this removal will only remove 3% of total traffic. That’s if you removed all available 2km car traffic. This is significant if you do it by education or persuasion but if you do it with large areas of road closure you are squeezing the remaining 97% of traffic onto a smaller road network, hence congestion, pollution etc.

With regards to pollution, apologies to Hal if he didn’t write the reports but I saw his name attached to an earlier one so presumed he had written it rather than just promoted it. I agree there has been some cherry picking on both sides but I thought I personally was being reasonably comprehensive in using YOUR timescales to compare YOUR data to close sites that would have automatically taken into account climatic variables, overall NO2 reductions with time etc. (#6236) which you hadn’t done in the article that Adrian posted on this site.

My concern is primarily with greenhouse gases, and secondarily with pollution so yes I would like to see a reduction in traffic and a speed up of electrification. There are much better ways of achieving this than LTNs which I believe are retrograde, and think I have shown this since nobody has argued statistically or claimed statistically I am wrong.

Karl you have argued the point much more in a general overarching stance and appear at times to have accepted some of the statistical analysis. In many respects I agree with some of what you say in that I am not in the camp of building ever more roads but don’t see the need to close off large areas where this leads to negative net effects to the environment and on people’s lives who genuinely have no alternative. In all honesty, the Fox Lane LTN, has it achieved your goal with respect to the whole community? If it hasn’t do you think it will eventually if it’s allowed to remain?

Referring to above, who do you believe TfL or DfT ?

Here’s the link for a quick check on TfL’s position
https://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-13.pdf Page 92

Traffic and pollution down on roads inside LTN AND boundary roads. More evidence that low traffic neighbourhoods work! https://news.hackney.gov.uk/rebuilding-a-greener-hackney-homerton-ltn-set-to-be-made-permanent/

I’ll continue to stay away from statistics in attempting to secure a single catch all answer to LTN’s as is sought; what’s the applied metric for how much better someone feels, and society’s health costs benefit by someone walking more?
You approach a calculation assuming 80% of journeys up to 2km (actually at 2km in your calculated case) are necessary. That’s the distance from PG Triangle to say tube stations at Bounds Green, Arnos and Southgate or alternatively Winchmore Hill. Say 40% or so don’t have access to a car, then of the 60% remaining 80% of those must drive such distances? Is that a sensible position for a less car dominated world to accept?
We can certainly try education but as has been seen with a multitude of sensible advice such as 5 a day, obesity, racism and now wear a mask / get vaccinated, there’s inevitably a me/now barrier for many which blocks change. Smoking is perhaps a decent counter, when education failed ever more stringent controls and price disincentives were employed to force progress.
With stats you are inevitable on tricky ground: Yesterday’s election result: Conservative majority dropped from 19,000 to only 4,000 (“disaster”); or the Conservative vote was above 50% (“wow”). Both true and there’s always the risk of hitting the “I have more legs than the UK average” answer: demonstrably true (in my case) but not really adding to the advancement of anything.
Take the Fox Lane area: 5000 houses / people inside (I’m guessing), 500 on the boundary roads. Say half of the former have experienced little real difference in through traffic from the LTN; 100 on the boundary roads so positioned that they too have only seen change more at the margin. So that’s 2500 benefiting from pollution, 400 perhaps in a worse scenario, a ballpark 6:1 ratio. That’s impressive.
Coming at things from the other extreme, you close off every single thoroughfare and you end up with no (viable) traffic and no traffic related pollution. That’s great on such metrics. Which roads do you then start to reopen and at what acceptable cost?
You say there are much better ways than LTN’s of reducing traffic. I would be all ears, the PM also asked recently for such input. I’m not saying they are the optimal answer but until someone comes along with a better solution to car domination I’ll run with them.

Karl. Where have I ever said that up to 80% of 2km journeys are necessary? I have never said any 2km car journey was necessary. I have used TfL statistics that 35% of car trips are 2km or less and their own calculation that some of these cannot be removed as they are necessary due to people being unable to actively travel these distances. These include old and disabled people, who may not themselves have a car but are reliant on friends, neighbours and family to get them to appointments or occasionally out of the house for a coffee or a sit in the park. It is TfL who state that the remainder (around 60% of the 2km or less trips, being 22% of all trips) are ones that could be shifted to active travel. I have never commented on the value of these trips and only used the TfL figures stating which are necessary (even though I have noted this 22% never takes into account weather or terrain).

You say you will “stay away from statistics” then proceed in the same post to coddle together some statistics of your own from guesswork to suggest more people have benefitted from improved air pollution than are suffering from it. In doing so you appear to be agreeing that on the perimeter roads the increased queueing traffic has led to increased pollution here, but claim that’s okay because there are more people in the LTN roads that have cleaner air to breathe. My calculations are based on showing there is a net increase overall in both pollution and greenhouse gases. The fact that this net increase is largely concentrated because of congestion makes the situation even more damaging since it’s in these areas the levels can rise quickly to seriously dangerous levels for people with respiratory diseases. That includes residents of your road when they venture out to the perimeter.

You also used statistics in # 6259 when you said “The intro section to the London Transport Strategy 2018, confirmed in 2021, paints a good summary. I think the UK figures go something like 1m+ vehicles in the 60’s, roughly 40m now and one government scenario putting the possible increase at a further 51% by ?DATE?” I have shown you in #6271 that TfL categorically DO NOT BELIEVE THIS but show car traffic on steady decline since 1999 in London. True this is in contradiction to DfT files due to their adjustments in 2018 so I ask you again, who do you believe DfT or TfL ?

Adrian, and indeed any of those out there promoting the retention of the LTN, I would ask the same question. Who do you believe The Dept for Transport who did agree almost totally with TfL until they upped their figures by 20% overnight or TfL who monitor traffic continually, consistently by both counts and large annual surveys who disagree with the adjustments and are backed up by other external data?

Adrian thanks for the link to Homerton and I will look and report back. On a quick glance Mete Coban has fallen into the same trap as I am highlighting above. He says “Traffic in Hackney has risen by 40 million miles a year between 2013 and 2019, according to Department for Transport statistics,”. Now if someone in his position doesn’t know that TfL do not believe this what hope is there? Now it is likely he does know but is putting the usual political spin on it. At first glance it looks pretty similar to the Waltham Forest spin (see #5964) saying traffic counts are cars (not true if you count a car passing through an LTN on three different roads and once on a perimeter road), by not counting beyond the immediate perimeter roads, etc.
With respect to pollution he has claimed the pollution has fallen on perimeter roads as well as within the LTN yet he is comparing annual average figures pre covid (2019) with annual figures during lockdown year(2020). Of course they have fallen. It would be ridiculous had they not fallen, er.. except one didn’t fall. Despite an overall drop in the air pollution levels everywhere this one stayed the same. This represents a large net increase here and where is it? Outside Homerton Hospital which deals mainly with childbirth and obesity so I guess pregnant Hackney women are really happy with the congestion and dirty air here. Didn’t Mete mention where it was? I guess he just forgot.

One other line that jumps out, he says “Overall, 37% of Commonplace responses wanted all or some of the filters to be made permanent, with 62% saying none should be made permanent.” So 62% were against completely but he’s lumped together those that were fully in approval with those that clearly objected to at least some of the barriers, but of course we don’t know actually how many were fully in approval. My guess is that he hasn’t told us because it’s an embarrassing figure. This is typical of the reportage that happened in the Walthamstow Village Report.

If one can see all this in a scant read of his own carefully worded press release I fear it will be Walthamstow like in it’s spin but will have to reserve judgement until the full report is released. I dare say Councillor Barnes is taking notes in how to get those elastic bands really wound up tight.

Peter, apologies if I misunderstood but my logic says that if you were basing your argument on 20% of a set of journeys being not required then by implication the remaining 80% become required.
Your case, as I’ve already said, seeks to prove – claims to prove - all LTN’s, and by extension all road closures, being to the detriment of steady state aggregate traffic distance are negative and should not be in place. It’s a view.
I put forward a two minute counter “proof”. Tune the assumed numbers to correct and the good / bad ratio will still be overwhelming when applied to pollutants (noise and PM’s in this case). I’m not promoting it, simply highlighting numbers have many dimensions and neither calculation is likely to pick up either the Frank Medal or a Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences.
TfL or DoT? Not something I’m looking at but I assume both have supportable sampling techniques based on specified assumptions. DVLA is presumably a good source for absolute vehicle numbers; and ANPR should be capable of providing quality data for determining driven miles and associated trends. Whatever the answer we have an examined, agreed strategy in London to reduce car domination and a government set on rolling out LTN’s. I don’t think the long campaign to blame, and in some quarters to belittle, Ian Barnes is community-helpful against such a framework.
The whole borough is an Air Quality Management Area (as I think are all nearby boroughs). Enfield’s resultant focus is based on traffic and seeking a move to active travel (walk, cycle, public transport) where they say we all have a role to play. So I’d say for those sitting in cars feeling forced to have an extra minute or more added to their journeys and feeling how unjust it all is and in some case just how incrementally polluting they believe it to be, to instead to focus on considering do they really need to be there in the first place, at least each and every time, and then with the engine running Whatever the answer I don’t believe it is going to be going along with 3-4000 vehicles per day bashing through Amberley and equivalent streets for their personal convenience.
If you don’t mind I’m going to end this one, I think we’ve explored and made points and it now taking a lot of space on a subject where a report is close to decide a future.

Karl, just to clear a few things up as I appreciate that you wish to bring this one to an end, and I do appreciate you taking the time to debate as opposed to others (Adrian ? Hal? Basil?) who simply stay silent when they cannot back their position up with counter statistics or evidence. And of course those who never enter into the debate (Sarah R. Oliver B. Ian B. etc.) . To finish then I’ll just clarify what you have brought to attention in the last post.

The 20% figure (actually 22%) is of the short journey traffic (35% @2km or less) and is not my figure but TfL’s. So if anyone is inferring the remainder are necessary it is them. Clearly some of the next third (2-5km) may also be deemed unnecessary to be driven but you have to eliminate walking as an alternative for most of these which leaves cycling as the only active alternative. By the time you get to the top third very few of these are ever going to be cycled so Public Transport is the only alternative. The problem is this top third averages 17km, according to TfL and constitutes well over 80% of the traffic on the road.

Your two minute counter proof does not counter at all. My argument is that the LTNs, even with maximum possible traffic evaporation of short journeys (which they are apparently designed to encourage) will only increase net pollution and greenhouse gases which, I’m sure you agree, we shouldn’t be doing. Whereas your counter proof just says this is okay since all this extra pollution is affecting a smaller amount of people (who already have more pollution and traffic anyway) than are benefitting. Firstly you are only taking into account boundary roads where the congestion/pollution is way beyond these roads anyway. Secondly you are not taking into account that the pollution is concentrated around the queueing traffic so these roads are experiencing much higher and potentially asthma attack inducing levels where if the traffic were spread more evenly these levels would not be reached. Thirdly the residents of the LTN still experience these concentrated levels whenever they walk or cycle beyond their private enclosure. Fourthly the net increase in Greenhouse Gases affects all of us where ever we live.

You say you are not promoting it but by suggesting it you show you are comfortable with the “I’m alright Jack” approach which is dividing the community. If you truly want to counter my statistical argument you need to prove my statistics are in error with either better sourced statistics or an error in maths or logic, not invent an unrelated proof. If your proof were true it still doesn’t disprove mine but they would co-exist which means there is more congestion and pollution but that’s okay because there are less people on boundary roads, who already experience more pollution anyway, than are inside so it doesn’t matter.

Ultimately the question still remains is what has happened to the 3-4000 cars that used to “bash down Amberley and other roads” ? Have they, or any significant proportion of them, evaporated as we were promised, or at least you believed they would. Or are they, a year later, on alternative routes on the boundary roads and beyond? If the 3% of the total traffic (that’s if we had 100% success at evaporating short journey traffic) that could disappear (according to TfL) actually disappeared, would we not still have the congestion we see virtually every day, since the 97% that remains is now concentrated on fewer roads? Do the 3-4000 vehicles who used your roads for their “convenience” have to now drive longer, both in time and distance, queue and crawl not for “one or more minutes” but often for eight to ten minutes, for your convenience of not having them drive down your roads?

Adrian, who do you believe TfL or DfT ?

If you look through the past year you'll see I have engaged with you countless times - I simply dont have the time to engage in further debate with your endless questioning of every assumption and stat even when they are supplied by full-time academics and bona fide research studies. For your information Oliver no longer lives in Enfield and Clare campaigns fulltime for LCC so is hardly going to spend her spare time engaging with your endless tomes. You ask what I believe? I believe traffic flows have increased in London and Enfield over the past 30 years, I believe volumes of traffic have increased on unclassified roads in Enfield thanks to digital way-finding apps and I believe that low traffic neighbourhoods are an effective way of dramatically reducing that through-traffic for residents and improving their quality of life. I also believe that ltns encourage people to think about their travel choices and encourage them to walk, cycle or use public transport rather than drive short distances when they can - and I believe that along with road-pricing, cycle lanes and improved public transport ltns lead to behaviour change. I see and hear evidence of this every day in Enfield's two ltns. I'm hugely encouraged that central, regional and local government policy makers and politicians see this as the way of the future - just last night Haringey approved three trials ltns which is fantastic news.

Alan Thomas - False