There's so many issues with this that it's hard to know where to start, but the use of data really must not be allowed to go unaddressed. It's pretty much all wrong. /.1 https://twitter.com/VoiceOfN9/status/1342049795066757126

2. WF 'support' comes from this: http://www.enjoywalthamforest.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Village-Review-Report-FINAL.pdf
BSfE’s claim is based on a q re: suggested improvements that 59% didn’t answer. The same study shows 24% saw no benefits at all & 49% regarded road closures as the least effective – and this is all people within the LTN /.2

contd – Furthermore in each of the key target areas for improvement barely a third saw benefits, almost as many saw things as worse and most saw no difference either way /.3

2. Walking and Cycling spend more in shops comes from this: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/walking-cycling-economic-benefits-summary-pack.pdf for which the 40% doesn’t mention cycling (just walking) and is based on data from 2013.
This is a more recent study which says the opposite http://content.tfl.gov.uk/town-centres-report-2014-15.pdf (& cyclists spend least)
/.4

3. % of journeys to shops in Enfield are already cycled / walked comes from the latest TfL report - it's very odd to merge the figures (is it because cycling is a tiny fraction of this?) and doesn't this suggest far less scope for mode shift than is implied by ... /.5

4. ... their favourite false claim that one-third of London car journeys are < 2km - covered before (as linked), many times. In truth around 1 in 5 journeys < 2km, most of which cannot be done by other means and/or are stages in longer overall journeys./.6 https://twitter.com/BBvoice4all/status/1327024877010882560?s=20

5. As for the travel by road type over time - this has been leapt upon by LTN advocates but neither DfT not TfL can provide support for its accuracy or use in this way: /.7

https://twitter.com/PaulLomax/status/1339323600571158534?s=20

https://twitter.com/PaulLomax/status/1341090720938078214?s=20

6. Finally the claims about safety on urban roads, BSfE's line of the week which is lifted from here - but the data behind it doesn't seem to be available and local data clearly shows the really dangerous roads are the ones being made worse. /.8
https://www.sustrans.org.uk/our-blog/opinion/2018/august/are-route-finding-apps-making-streets-more-dangerous

So none of their data stacks up, as always seems to be the case, which is very strange for a policy that they are so certain about. If the evidence actually existed there'd be no need for such shenanigans. /.9

Just as significant is the data they ignore - readily available and accurate, about deprivation and equality, which shows where the negative impact falls and clashes with the anecdotal benefits that are claimed here. It's just never addressed. Conclusion? More chicanery. /.10

(& as for the anecdotes, the St.M's evidence is great, but failure to recognise it's just one v advantaged school is what stands out, alongside the entire 'commonwealth' paragraph in which every issue raised is being deliberately exacerbated for those already suffering most.)/.11