Read on Twitter
Arguments in favour of LTNs are bolstered almost daily by (at best) uncritical automatic acceptance of evidence that seems to support the case. At worst it’s deliberate distortion and dishonesty. At the same time there are a host of points that they simply never address. /.1
There's no meaningful response to the following:
By displacing at least 85% of traffic, largely onto already congested roads, LTNs add to net pollution for all
The inevitable equality impacts on vulnerable groups who rely on motor vehicle transport /.2
By displacing at least 85% of traffic, largely onto already congested roads, LTNs add to net pollution for allThe inevitable equality impacts on vulnerable groups who rely on motor vehicle transport /.2
Many LTNs will have a socially regressive outcome as more affluent, high car ownership side streets benefit at the expense of main roads with less affluent residents that are disproportionately used by the less advantaged, and where car ownership is lower. /.3
Anyone raising the points above faces a barrage of bad faith responses and ad hominem attacks.
It's increasingly clear there is no cogent response.
Yet the following are trotted out repeatedly ...
/.4
It's increasingly clear there is no cogent response.
Yet the following are trotted out repeatedly ...
/.4
All either without any firm basis or demonstrably false:
LTNs are supported by the majority of those who live in them
LTNs reduce congestion and pollution (rather than displace them)
30%/33%/40% of car journeys in London are less than 2km
/.5
LTNs are supported by the majority of those who live in themLTNs reduce congestion and pollution (rather than displace them)30%/33%/40% of car journeys in London are less than 2km/.5
more people cycling benefits local businesses any outcome will be better than the status quoLTNs are proven not to hinder (/possibly to help) emergency services accessLTNs are proven to deliver increased walking and cyclingThe disbenefits disappear after a while/.6
The above is worded carefully. It is important not to generalise about LTNs. Context and design are important variables. I do not claim any basis on which to assert that the concept of an LTN will always have a negative impact – and so I have been careful not to do so. /.7
Those who promote LTNs rarely, if ever, exercise such caution, preferring to resolutely deny concerns about a risky experiment, poorly implemented, on a large scale, on the basis of wishful thinking, narrow ideological conviction and/or ruthless pursuit of self-interest. 8/8.
I'm sure I've missed plenty from the lists above. Add LTNs are needed in London because individual car ownership is increasing to the demonstrably false list: https://twitter.com/one_lewisham/status/1326110910847594497?s=20
