still looking at the issue in aggregate...no acceptance that there is increased traffic on some boundary rds and a minority suffer. The evidence is there in my area of Hackney in the only released traffic stats.There will always be some roads with higher traffic in LTNs - and rds not designed for it - ThreadSky

tonytassell.bsky.social • 37 days ago

still looking at the issue in aggregate...no acceptance that there is increased traffic on some boundary rds and a minority suffer. The evidence is there in my area of Hackney in the only released traffic stats.There will always be some roads with higher traffic in LTNs - and rds not designed for it

Comments

paulluton.bsky.social•37 days ago

So deal directly with the excess amount of traffic. Road charging is overdue.

tonytassell.bsky.social•37 days ago

i would be happy with that for sure

prj45.bsky.social•37 days ago

Too many cars Tony.

tonytassell.bsky.social•37 days ago

agreed

peterwalker99.bsky.social•37 days ago

"no acceptance there is increased traffic on some boundary rds and a minority suffer" ; "There will always be some roads with higher traffic in LTNs".

Yet again, if we're talking about LTNs as a generality, then there's no evidence this is true. "Acceptance " isn't the issue here. It's evidence.

tonytassell.bsky.social•37 days ago

No it is how the evidence is looked at - and you know that. You argue for the aggregate. That does not capture the genuine issues of minority. You might not consider those concerns important but people living on those boundary roads with increased traffic do.

bluesea13.bsky.social•35 days ago

This is utterly ludicrous. They didn’t even measure the boundary roads’ pollution levels properly and @peterwalker99.bsky.social are still talking about “evidence”?

peterwalker99.bsky.social•37 days ago

I'm not sure how to put this any more plainly: there is **no evidence** I am aware of that LTNs as a whole create more traffic on boundary/other roads. Motor traffic is not water in a pipe. When shorter one-person car trips become harder, people make few of them.

peterwalker99.bsky.social•37 days ago

Given this, your talk of aggregates vs minorities is entirely irrelevant.

peterwalker99.bsky.social•37 days ago

As with any policy interventions, there will be a balance of individual winners and losers. But the example you choose isn't one of them, as the evidence indicates pretty strongly that (after a time for bedding in and in well-created schemes) when it comes to traffic levels there are no losers.

tonytassell.bsky.social•37 days ago

not at all..tell that to the people living on a purely residential street around the corner from me that had a 60% increase in traffic in the only publicly available stats post LTNs. Hackney Council has refused to release any more data.

peterwalker99.bsky.social•36 days ago

That sounds like a complaint about a potentially badly-planned or implemented individual LTN, which we agree can be a thing. So now I’m *really* not sure what your argument is.

tonytassell.bsky.social•37 days ago

you keep repeating that. "As a whole" means you are looking at the aggregate rather the rds that do suffer more traffic like i do. LTNs proponents like you would gain more support if they acknowledged the problems and lobbied for remedies than seeking to quash any questioning/criticism

peterwalker99.bsky.social•37 days ago

By "as a whole" I mean LTNs in general, rather than particular examples which have been botched in design. If you're arguing, "Some LTNs have existed which have, even in the shorter term, increased traffic on some boundary roads", then that's v obviously true. But if, as it seems, you point is ....

peterwalker99.bsky.social•37 days ago

... that LTNs necessarily or habitually do this (after they have bedded in) then I am not aware of any evidence for this. A good start might be some clarity on which of the two you are arguing.

jamescelisjones.bsky.social•37 days ago

All policies have winners and losers; the issue (as always) is where the balance of equity and efficacy lies

tonytassell.bsky.social•37 days ago

of course..losers in this case might risk a health impact.i am hopeful ulez/more expensive costs to run cars, WFH and EVs mitigate that

jamescelisjones.bsky.social•37 days ago

Imaginary pollution isn’t very harmful really

jamescelisjones.bsky.social•37 days ago

Real pollution is harmful and all the evidence I’ve seen shows LTNs generally reduce such actual pollution in boundary areas as well as in the zones

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply