On 13/03/2023 11:25 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > This report shows that most streets within low traffic neighbourhoods
see reductions in traffic...
Thanks for confirming that fairy-cyclists are not traffic.

You're wrong about pedestrians, though.

Again.

JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
> On 13/03/2023 09:18 am, Spike wrote:
>> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In London the new LTNs are, in fact, more likely to be located in
>>> boroughs with higher levels of deprivation. In Hackney, for example, new
>>> low traffic neighbourhoods include a high proportion of residents living
>>> in social housing. Level of social deprivation was also a criteria that
>>> councils were told to prioritise when designing new LTNs to ensure the
>>> health benefits of less traffic were felt by the people most affected by it.
>>
>> Shock! Horror!
>>
>> London boroughs with the highest rates of deprivation have fewest cars, so
>> they are putting in LTNs to reduce the amount of traffic!
>>
>> You couldn’t make it up!
>
> :-)
>>
>>> Although we have less data for trends outside of London, The Groves LTN
>>> in York is located in one of the most deprived wards in the area. And
>>> Bath and North East Somerset council are taking into account the amount
>>> of vulnerable residents in an area to decide where new LTNs should be
>>> introduced, and with what priority.
>>
>> In other words, find the areas that would be least affected by LTNs, and
>> put them there!
>>
>> It’s a box-ticking exercise…and fools fall for it…🙄
>>
>>> Safer roads are fairer roads
>>
>> Ignorance is Strength.
>
> :-)
>
> and Work Makes You Free (especially if you're supposed to be brushing
> and mopping up at night and you waste your employer's time on usenet and
> it all gets raised at the AGM).
>>
>>> Creating more space for everyone to be able to walk and cycle safely is
>>> crucial for making our transport system fairer. At the moment, men are
>>> much more likely to cycle than women, and women of colour in particular are
>>> underrepresented among cyclists. This is directly linked to concerns
>>> about safety on the road and fear of harassment.
>>
>>> In London, studies show that black people are less likely to own a car,
>>> but more likely to be injured by a car while walking. The massive
>>> increase in rat-running down residential roads over the last decade has
>>> contributed to a disproportionate rise in walking and cycling
>>> casualties on these streets.
>>
>> Numbers? Where are the numbers?
>>
>> Let’s see the evidence!
>
> You're asking the impossible.
>>
>>> Giving these neighbourhoods back to people who live there is a crucial
>>> first step to reducing these risks and addressing this inequality.
>>
>> But if ‘these people’ have fewer cars, and you want to address that
>> inequality, how is that to be done?
>>
>> Put more cars into LTNs?
>>
>>> But activists should keep listening
>>
>> Sorry, but they are too busy shouting their slogans.
>>
>>> Even though LTNs are an important, valuable measure to make our streets
>>> safer and air cleaner, they shouldn’t be immune from criticism. Many
>>> people have joined the LTN debate because they believe that no one can
>>> touch their right to drive wherever they like, and we know opposition is overestimated.
>>
>> Who is this ‘We’? IngSoc?
>
> He won't "get" that.
>>
>>> But local authorities and people calling for safer streets should listen
>>> to genuine concerns from marginalised people and those living on main
>>> roads and make sure that LTNs help and benefit as many people as possible.
>>
>> Sloganism…aka blah blah…🙄
>>
>>> Addressing these concerns will also require putting pressure on
>>> politicians at every level of government to reduce traffic on main roads
>>> as well as residential roads. They can do this by making public transport
>>> cheaper and more accessible, replacing diesel vans with electric
>>> vehicles, supporting e-bikes and introducing road-user charging, among other things.
>>
>>> But feedback should be used to make LTNs better, not to get rid of them
>>> completely. This only takes away the chance for any communities to
>>> benefit from safer, quieter streets and clean air and wasting public
>>> money in the process.
>>
>> War is Peace! Ignorance is Strength!
>
> "[This] does not mean, of course, that the pound here in Britain, in
> your pocket or purse, or in your bank, has been devalued!".

<vbg>

--
Spike

The way we travel and move around is changing.
Policymakers are setting a clear direction of travel – they want to
accelerate the shift to a world where car dependency is not the default
option in our cities. The evidence is clear. If there are convenient, reliable
and affordable alternative options to the private car then people will
choose sustainable options.
As policymakers introduce policies to reduce car dependency, vehicle
rental has an essential role to play in providing access to a car as and when
needed. At Enterprise we see ourselves as a key part of the solution –
working with public transport providers and local government to provide
convenient, economical and sustainable ways to travel. This includes
providing people with access to a vehicle on those journeys where a car or
a van are required.
We welcome the focus in this report on the need to think holistically
about mobility. Simply banning cars from a particular area will not create
the long-term shift in behaviour that we need to see. The evidence shows
that a majority of residents strongly welcome reduced traffic in their own
neighbourhood.

But there must be alternative options provided to people
who rely on their own car. Mobility hubs are one promising example –
these enable different modes of transport to come together to make other
options than the private car more convenient. Making it easy for people
to plan their journeys and providing financial incentives to give up their
private car through the widespread use of mobility credits will also be
necessary.

Only by adopting bold new solutions will we stand any chance
of achieving Sadiq Khan’s target of a 25% reduction in car use by 2030.
This report is an important contribution to the debate. It is now
up to Transport for London and individual Boroughs to provide local
communities with the access they need to the full range of sustainable
modes of travel. Working hand in glove with the private sector will help to
ensure we deliver the greener and cleaner London that we all wish to see.

This means that residents- and services for them- can still drive and park on their street, but simple measures like bollards or planters are used to make access one way or at slower speeds. This discourages motorists who don’t live in the area using it for cutting through onto main or ‘distributor’ roads.

Such schemes enable children to play outside more and foster a greater sense of community between neighbours, especially when combined with “pocket parks” featuring trees, benches and flowers. They also boost the number of people walking and cycling for shorter journeys.

In 2014 Waltham Forest was one of the winners of the ‘Mini Holland’ competition – to boost cycling in outer London boroughs – and was awarded £27m.

They spent the money creating segregated cycle lanes on main roads and providing secure bike storage in streets and at train / tube stations. Thousands of school kids and adults were also trained to cycle. In addition to this ‘Copenhagen’ pedestrian crossings were introduced, and bollards / planters were used to close many streets to through traffic. Many of these streets had new trees planted and 30 pocket parks were created in total.

In terms of results, there's been a 103% increase in cycling, and walking has risen by 32 minutes a week per resident. NO2 exposure was cut by 15 to 25%. Many residents have expressed how much they love the changes, and traffic levels on 12 key roads in the area fell by 56%, or 10,000 fewer vehicles a day,
Barcelona: superblocks
Let’s fill the streets with life!

A ‘superblock’ consists of an area 3 streets by 3 streets; within this mini- neighbourhood access is restricted to resident and delivery vehicles only, and they must enter at a greatly reduced speed of 7 mph. The idea is to create ‘citizen spaces’ where residents can socialise, create pocket parks, have picnics, concerts etc. and children are safe to play.

The plan was a response to that fact that Barcelona is extremely densely populated (16,000 people per m2) and the number of cars was making the city unliveable in terms of congestion, air pollution and traffic noise.

A 2017 study concluded that the cumulative impact of these issues was roughly 3,000 cases of premature mortality a year.

The first superblock was introduced in 2017 in Poblenou, in the north of the city, and was met with opposition by car owners and also those who claimed it would be ruinous to local business.

However, opposition has faded as residents have begun to enjoy the benefits of a traffic-free neighbourhood. There are also 30% more local businesses than previously and a significant increase in the numbers of people making journeys on foot or cycling.

Superblocks were complemented by the introduction of 300km of new cycling lanes, and reformation of the bus system so that most apartment blocks are no more than 300 metres from a bus stop– and average waiting times reduced from 14 to 5 minutes.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> The way we travel and move around is changing.
> Policymakers are setting a clear direction of travel – they want to
> accelerate the shift to a world where car dependency is not the default
> option in our cities.

The Party wants you off the road.

Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength!

> The evidence is clear. If there are convenient, reliable
> and affordable alternative options to the private car then people will
> choose sustainable options.

That’ll be the day.

I commuted for 13 years on London Underground.

I don’t recommend it.

I tried travelling by bus for evening social events. I was glad to alight
in one piece.

> As policymakers introduce policies to reduce car dependency, vehicle
> rental has an essential role to play in providing access to a car as and when
> needed. At Enterprise we see ourselves as a key part of the solution –
> working with public transport providers and local government to provide
> convenient, economical and sustainable ways to travel. This includes
> providing people with access to a vehicle on those journeys where a car or
> a van are required.

Ah, the solution to car ownership is car rental, says a car rental firm.

Mandy Rice David would have laughed at that one.

> Only by adopting bold new solutions will we stand any chance
> of achieving Sadiq Khan’s target of a 25% reduction in car use by 2030.

The best solution is to move out of London!

> This report is an important contribution to the debate. It is now
> up to Transport for London and individual Boroughs to provide local
> communities with the access they need to the full range of sustainable
> modes of travel. Working hand in glove with the private sector will help to
> ensure we deliver the greener and cleaner London that we all wish to see.

Blah Blah.

--
Spike

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> In 2014 Waltham Forest was one of the winners of the ‘Mini Holland’
> competition – to boost cycling in outer London boroughs – and was awarded £27m.

Why ever would anyone want to emulate the dreadful cyclist death rate of
Holland?

<https://swov.nl/sites/default/files/media/media.up/fs_international_fig5.png>

> They spent the money creating segregated cycle lanes on main roads and
> providing secure bike storage in streets and at train / tube stations.
> Thousands of school kids and adults were also trained to cycle. In
> addition to this ‘Copenhagen’ pedestrian crossings were introduced, and
> bollards / planters were used to close many streets to through traffic.
> Many of these streets had new trees planted and 30 pocket parks were created in total.
>
> In terms of results, there's been a 103% increase in cycling, and walking
> has risen by 32 minutes a week per resident. NO2 exposure was cut by 15
> to 25%. Many residents have expressed how much they love the changes, and
> traffic levels on 12 key roads in the area fell by 56%, or 10,000 fewer vehicles a day,
> Barcelona: superblocks
> Let’s fill the streets with life!

But the Dutch roads are filled with death:

<https://swov.nl/sites/default/files/media/media.up/fs_international_fig5.png>

> A ‘superblock’ consists of an area 3 streets by 3 streets; within this
> mini- neighbourhood access is restricted to resident and delivery
> vehicles only, and they must enter at a greatly reduced speed of 7 mph.
> The idea is to create ‘citizen spaces’ where residents can socialise,
> create pocket parks, have picnics, concerts etc. and children are safe to play.
>
> The plan was a response to that fact that Barcelona is extremely densely
> populated (16,000 people per m2) and the number of cars was making the
> city unliveable in terms of congestion, air pollution and traffic noise.

That’s an awful lot of people per sq m.

> A 2017 study concluded that the cumulative impact of these issues was
> roughly 3,000 cases of premature mortality a year.

> The first superblock was introduced in 2017 in Poblenou, in the north of
> the city, and was met with opposition by car owners and also those who
> claimed it would be ruinous to local business.
>
> However, opposition has faded as residents have begun to enjoy the
> benefits of a traffic-free neighbourhood. There are also 30% more local
> businesses than previously and a significant increase in the numbers of
> people making journeys on foot or cycling.

> Superblocks were complemented by the introduction of 300km of new cycling
> lanes, and reformation of the bus system so that most apartment blocks
> are no more than 300 metres from a bus stop– and average waiting times
> reduced from 14 to 5 minutes.

<https://swov.nl/sites/default/files/media/media.up/fs_international_fig5.png>

Holland comes out best for motorcycle deaths, and pretty badly for other
modes of transport, but you’d never guess from this article.’

--
Spike

A low traffic neighbourhood (LTN) is a residential area, bordered by main roads (the places where buses, lorries, non-local traffic should be), where "through" motor vehicle traffic is discouraged or removed. Strategic road closures (like bollards or planters) prevent through traffic. Every street is still accessible by vehicle.

There are many ways to design a low traffic neighbourhood, but the main principle is that every resident can drive onto their street, get deliveries etc., but it’s harder or impossible to drive straight through from one main road to the next.

The aims of LTNs include:

deterring traffic from diverting from congested main roads to residential streets as rat runs
making it safer for pedestrians to social distance, for instance by walking in the street where pavements are narrower than the recommended two metres
encouraging people to use bikes where possible by reducing traffic that many find intimidating and off-putting for cycle journeys, especially short, local trips
encouraging people to walk for short journeys such as local shopping trips rather than taking the car
securing gains made during lockdown, such as cleaner air, neighbourliness and reduced noise
reducing traffic on residential streets, creating low-traffic corridors across Merton so more people can walk and cycle as part of their daily routine.

Becoming a LTN means residents retain motor vehicle access, as do delivery vehicles, visitors and emergency and waste services. The goal is to deter drive-through access by those trying to avoid the main roads. This can be achieved by a variety of means, ranging from ANPR camera enforcement, narrowed access points, banned movements such as ‘no left/right turn’ restrictions, removable bollards, to street end closures. For example this already exists in the residential streets located to the north of Merton High Street.
Why LTNs?

Merton has too many car journeys, and this affects:

climate change: London’s roads produce at least 20% of its carbon emissions. Vehicles account for nearly a quarter of Merton’s emissions.
air pollution: causes 9,500 premature deaths in London per year.
road danger: Merton sees 100s of injuries and some deaths on its roads every year.
physical inactivity: we are so car-dependent we don’t get the exercise we need. Merton's rate of childhood obesity means that 1 in 3 pupils are obese by the time they leave primary school.

Low traffic neighbourhoods reduce car journeys and boost walking and cycling for all ages. They help combat the climate emergency, reduce road casualties, clean up our air and enable our residents to lead healthier lifestyles..

Kings College found that Waltham Forest’s low traffic neighbourhoods reduced air pollution and boosted healthy active travel significantly – leading to a longer life expectancy for residents.

Children in the area are once again playing on the street, people routinely walk in the middle of the road and it’s so quiet you can hear birdsong.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> Kings College found that Waltham Forest’s low traffic neighbourhoods
> reduced air pollution and boosted healthy active travel significantly –
> leading to a longer life expectancy for residents.

> Children in the area are once again playing on the street, people
> routinely walk in the middle of the road and it’s so quiet you can hear birdsong.

ROFL

--
Spike

The largest study of low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) in London has found they reduced motor traffic.

Traffic data from 46 LTN scheme across 11 boroughs reported the mean percentage reduction of traffic on streets within them was 46.9%.

The study was conducted by the University of Westminster's Active Travel Academy and was commissioned by climate charity Possible.

Opponents of LTNs have criticised the study's methodology and impartiality.

LTNs do not create more congestion, research shows
Anger, hate and the politics of the planter

LTNs try to reduce motor traffic in residential areas by using either cameras, planters or lockable bollards.

The analysis looked at both internal roads within the LTNs and boundary roads, looking at the actual changes in motor traffic as well as what might have been expected based on previous London traffic trends.

Many streets saw fewer than 1,000 motor vehicles passing through them a day..
Presentational grey line
Protest sign 'rethink LTN' against the Low-traffic neighbourhood barriers put in place in Kings HeatImage source, Getty Images
Image caption,
Several councils have changed their approach to LTNs
Analysis:

BBC London transport correspondent Tom Edwards

What LTNs (or as they're now called in some places Liveable Streets) try to do is encourage behaviour changes and get people to walk or cycle or use public transport by creating cul-de-sacs for motor traffic. The aim of that is to reduce emissions.

But they have been very divisive in London and controversial.

What this research shows is they have worked in getting people out of their cars, the traffic on the boundary roads - according to the research - hasn't increased by the same amount it has dropped within the zone, i.e. people have switched modes.

Nonetheless in London we still have a patchwork of councils with some like Islington and Lambeth expanding LTNs rapidly and others like Kensington and Chelsea not using them at all. Some like Ealing have pulled them out.

Whatever the research shows it is unlikely to change the mind of many. Views seem entrenched on this subject and the heated debate on who the capital's residential streets are predominantly designed for, will no doubt rumble on.
Presentational grey line

The LTNs studied were put in place between May 2020 and May 2021.

It found on internal roads, a mean baseline of 1,816 vehicles per day reduced to 964. Had the expected trend been followed, the count would have been 1,779.

The study also concluded LTNs did not lead to an increase or decrease in motor traffic on boundary roads.

The report states: "Our findings suggest that LTNs can have an important role in reducing motor traffic on minor streets."

However it added boundary roads (and other main roads for which LTNs were not suitable) urgently needed improvement as many such roads, which can see 11,000 motor vehicles use them a day, were hostile for walking and cycling and had poor injury and pollution records.

It added removing LTNs was unlikely to alleviate these issues.

Responding to the study, OneLondon, an umbrella group which represents more than 15 neighbourhood groups across London opposed to LTNs, said there were multiple flaws in the research.

In a statement, a spokesperson said: "The study notes that there were 96 schemes introduced but only 46 formed part of the study.

"Given councils may have chosen not to publish data for the worst-performing schemes, it would be hard to ignore the possibility of cherry picking or survivorship bias."

The spokesperson also said methods used in the study were misleading, such as the use of percentage increases in traffic on boundary roads.

They argued a small percentage increase on busier roads could still represent a large number of vehicles being displaced from smaller roads, due to the overall amount of traffic on boundary roads.

OneLondon added: "Any improved analysis should not be restricted to groups marking their own homework - where those responsible for funding, campaigning for, or implementing schemes are the ones measuring their success."

Shirley Rodriguez, London's deputy mayor for environment and energy, said: "It's absolutely key that we keep looking at the evidence for LTNs but it certainly confirms what we're seeing at Transport for London in terms of the impact on road traffic reduction because of schemes like this and ULEZ, which is to the benefit of us all.

"LTN schemes where people feel they don't work for them, the boroughs should be listening to them, the local authority leaders should be listening to their residents and then redesigning those schemes to make sure they do work and reflect those concerns."