A very positive aspect of LTNs reported here:

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/23/low-traffic-...s

Only because the number of cars on the road during the period in question (due to pandemic restrictions on in-office working) was significantly reduced.

What will be interesting is whether any further studies will be carried out (I doubt it) covering the subsequent period when traffic has gone back to much nearer normal levels generally - and covering surrounding roads not part of such schemes, because if all it does is force through route users onto other roads, the difference may be marginal at best.

It still doesn't address similar questions about moving congestion / pollution to other (main) roads and the fact that most, if not all of these schemes were imposed without the knowledge or support of locals during a lockdown period where complaints were going unherd, and where in some circumstances the emergency services hav ebeen prevented from /dealyed reaching destinations because the roads are either completely blocked half way along and/or they weren't made aware of the changes and wasted their time either going that way and having to double back or using other more congested routes.

I'm not holding my breath that any of this will be investigated to any significant degree (if at all) in the same paper.

It still doesn't address similar questions about moving congestion / pollution to other (main) roads and the fact that most, if not all of these schemes were imposed without the knowledge or support of locals during a lockdown period where complaints were going unherd, and where in some circumstances the emergency services hav ebeen prevented from /dealyed reaching destinations because the roads are either completely blocked half way along and/or they weren't made aware of the changes and wasted their time either going that way and having to double back or using other more congested routes.

There seems to have been central government money for these schemes. In London it was distributed to the Boroughs via the Mayor/GLA. While it's clear that some were rushed and that legal challenges from Taxi Drivers have been successful in one or two cases I'd like it if you could stand up the assertion that most if not all had no local knowledge or support.

Where/when were emergency services delayed? Were the delays or results any worse than normal in urban traffic? Were the crews not told or was it a case of 'not read the memo'?

I'm not going to start an argument on this, but take my word for it that I've read more than a few news articles about this issue as regards London and unwanted by locals living in affected streets (why many have had the schemes removed).

Whether emergency services crews 'have not all been told', AFAIK, none of them do 'The Knowledge' and rely on satnavs as much as their own (limited) knowledge of an area is not an issue - these schemes have often not found their way onto satnav networks and thus they are a big problem for anyone - whether emergency services, delivery drivers or ordinary people trying to reach a nearby road.

Again - no-one locally was asking for them to appear - traffic-calming, yes, this - no. The problem (as was reported in the media) was that no locals were consulted - the schemes just appeared.

I mean, WHY would the government give councils money to do this sort of thing precisely at a time when it needed all the money it could muster to help sick people, especially when the problem of traffic congestion had practically disappeared due to pandemic restrictions?

Sounds to me like people in authority wanting to 'slip in' schemes to do stuff over the heads of the electorate when the time was ripe. The 'encouragement' to get people to cycle was a complete waste of time, as (and you've said this yourself) there is little joined-up thinking as regards continuous and viable cycle routes that by their introduction which mainly just creates more congestion by reducing road widths and blocking roads because vehicles turning off cannot get out of through traffic's way.

Today I'm on a caravan site in Outer North West London. We spent a bit of the day going to Watford and then Stanmore looking for a garden type Parasol (non awning pitch). While I used my memory and sense of direction between Watford and Stanmore I used Google Maps for the other two legs. At various times we were taken back/forth down residential streets. At one point in Stanmore it was just a dog leg to avoid the congested Broadway. Add to that the vast increase in delivery traffic also using sat nav routing. I suspect that it's a bit like speeding; people want action against it in their area but complain when they get flashed in somebody else's street,

The problem is that many side roads are the only viable route unless you want to get stuck in heavy traffic (normal situations) for ages. As someone who regularly used to drive into North London and surrounds, it ain't fun if you have to stay on the major routes.

Even so, with all the detours down side roads, it's still mostly far quicker (and cheaper) than going via public transport (a commute example took me [worst normal case] 35 mins by car and 1hr 10mins by public transport/walking - for a journey of just 7 miles).

It could be done via cycle, but only on weekends (also very hilly and not conducive for work) as there was only two routes, both heavily used by other vehicles with no possibility of cycle lanes being installed (very narrow roads on half the route, the rest in a protected area). The problem for London is that it ain't Paris with lovely wide streets everywhere (thanks to our poor leaders after the Great Fire of London - we're stuck with what we have).

We're all going on a - summer holiday - to Watford / Stanmore? No parasols in Northants? :-)

findingspress.org/article/18198-the-impact-of-intr...n

This is the research undertaken by Professor Rachel Aldred of University of Westminster. She's one of the most experienced Academics in the transport/movement/street design sector working currently. Her work is cited in some of the articles on LTNs although clearly her conclusions are inconvenient for journalists trying to write articles criticising LTNs. They seem to prefer anecdotes from individuals to creat an article. I trust Rachel Aldred's work as a proper academic producing peer-reviewed research.

Reading the report - and taking out the period before they first implemented any LTN (2015) and 2020 (not representative given the pandemic restrictions), it appeared from the graphs that general response times had been dropping since about 2015, but more so for the non-LTN areas (green lines) than the (since 2015 - 19) LTN areas (red lines) - possibly with some indicators for the latter being essentially flat.

To me, that more likely indicates that driver training for fire engines may have improved, meaning they knew which routes to go.which to avoid, etc.

Note that the data shown is, in my view, a bit misleading because it implies that LTN areas have always had better response time than non-LTN ones, but given LTNs weren't introduced until at least 2015 (from the report's maps), many of these areas previously already had lower response times to start with.

One other thing that may have happened (but is not mentioned) is that when traffic calming schemes are installed, road repairs/resurfacing also takes place, removing potholes, which is an obvious hindrance to vehicles. This happened on a road local to me when speed humps were installed.

That plus the plethora of tabulated data that does not include that vital information means that its validity is not great. As an engineer, I've made enough studied/compiled reports where, if you want to show X or Y, you can if you show certain information or change the context in which it is given, especially (as in this case) there lots of 'data' and pretty graphs, convolunted sentences, etc and little plain English or context to explain what it means, or, more importantly, can be interpreted to mean.

I worked on the Tube for a few years and as consulting engineers for many public bodies (not on roads projects but Building Services) and know first hand how reports can easily be manipulated to say whatever the commissioning individual/authority wants it to say. Unfortunately they often obscure what actually is the reality on the ground.

If I recall, Barnet council had to remove many LTN road furnuture because they were hated by locals because of the issues I described. I would also note that paramedics don't like LTNs due to the lack of access, and, just as importantly, the speed humps, which cannot be taken at speed through fear of (further) injury to patients, thus slowing down the time taken to get to hospital. I've seen these problems on TV 'fly-on'the-wall documentaries about emergency services.

As I've also discovered over the years, unfortunately, 'peer-reviewed' studies/reports are not the be all and end all to avoid bias or far worse (the pharmacutical industry being the worst).

I've even noticed this in engineering, where many firms now readily send work out 'on the nod' to save time/effort/money without a proper critical/independent eye checking work (it often is self-checked by the author), or putting out work that favours what the client wants to see. It was one of the reasons why I left the industry.

Normally, the best clue as to really who accurate, truthful and not biased a report is is whether the author is willing to be personally and publicly scrutinised by truly independent outsiders.

In my experience over nearly 30 years from college through as an engineer afterwards, academics (and sadly an increasing number of engineers from around the mid 2000s) from other bodies/firms may well emply a 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' approach to eachother's work, so that work goes through smoothly and they get more commissions/funding.

Properly running a critical eye over work submitted for review can often get you unfairly blacklisted in various ways these days, especially in the past 18 months.

A former employer of mine did not accept that I pointed out that a design of a colleague on a project would not work or run foul of planning restrictions, but they refused to listen, and voila, the original design was refused, and no tinkering was possible.

It meant the architect had to go back to the drawing board to reduce the height of the building or give far more plant room space for the M&E equipment. The problem was so great, it scuppered the entire project as the client wasn't prepared to spend an extra £500k to have built a much larger basement plant room, extra risers and reduced usable rooms (OAP home) in the remainder of the building. That was in 2016 - no further work has been done on this project since.

As such, I am now always sceptical of 'official reports' as well as designs that look 'too good to be true' that fix all issues cheaply and easily. When the people behind them don't want scrutiny, then you know there's something fishy going on. I can't say whwther this is the case with this LTN report, but after my initial review, my BS antenae are already twiching.

I don’t buy it either, there is a demonisation of cars in this country. Cyclists around here are pretty rare users of the cycle lanes preferring to use pavements while the motor vehicles have less and less space. As said the people with money go where it suits them. I avoid London as much as possible now and go to provincial theatres, hotels and concerts etc.

Helping get more people cycling and finding ways for all road users to use the roads does not mean there is demonisation of cars...we just need to find better ways to share the space we have.