Ah - the joys of LTN data! It never ceases to amaze how badly data is used in relation to LTNs.
(1) the minor road traffic data that is being shared is entirely estimated and it's not being treated with the responsibility / caution advised by the source (DfT). /1.

72% bears no relation at all to actual data for Enfield (or any other London Borough). This explains why not:

https://twitter.com/simonjcalvert/status/1322898406386388992?s=20

There are count points on minor roads in Enfield for which there is actual data (ie not estimated) - it looks like this: /2.

And any implication that LTNs reduce miles travelled is highly questionable given the only Borough with LTNs (WF) shows a worse traffic increase than most other boroughs over the the 5 years that LTNs have been in.

https://twitter.com/simonjcalvert/status/1322951947423502336?s=20 /.3

(2) "35% car trips in London are 2km" - used so often that it must be accurate? But it isn't either.
It comes from this: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-14-who-travels-by-car-in-london.pdf
It is based on trips by London residents who account for “just under two thirds of all car driver trips ... on an average day.” /.4

So 35% is actually around 22% of the total car trips in London. Quite different. Factor in how many of these can't be made by other means (as a very crude reference >10% of the population of London 75+) and the scope for reduction will be well, well below 22%. /.5

Which we already knew as the only existing research that underpins the theory of traffic evaporation (though not based on LTNs) suggests something in the region of 11% could be expected. 15% would be generous. Isn't it deliberately misleading to use the TfL data in this way? /.6

It’s also from 2012. More recent TfL data shows journeys per person have been in decline since then but overall traffic has increased due to an increasing population. Is this being overlooked? Isn't this crucial? Especially in LTN areas where lots of housing is being built? /.7

(3) And as for the 57% from yougov - generalised question, which only lists the benefits of LTNs (see pic). If asked I might have answered tend to support - the aims are sound. But that doesn't mean I believe for an instant that any LTN design will work in any context. /.8

We have c150 LTNs being introduced in one go. + they've been rushed. So whilst I might be part of the 57%, I'm entirely against the current design of #BowesLTN and all available evidence indicates most in Bowes are too. (Note London noticeably lower from a v small sample) /.9

Using data like this massively increases concerns. Regardless of whether it's careless, designed to enable accessibility or actually intended to distort, the impact is to heighten concerns about the prospect of making mistakes and further erode trust. /.10 End

@stopenfieldltns
@BBvoice4all
@Nesil_Caliskan
@Bambos_MP
@grantshapps
@EnfieldCouncil
@YaseminBrett3
@ChibahKatherine