nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Which Tufton Street outfit are you working for, chief?
Petition to request parliament review LTNs
- Thread starter ianarmstrong
- Start date
ianarmstrong
Active Member
Article in the Times yesterday highlighting how LTN traffic count monitoring equipment significantly underestimates traffic by between 5% and 35% and how it does not take in to account congestion as it is not designed to monitor stop-start-idling traffic - it also points out the conflict of interest in appointing Rachel Aldred's department to perform a review for the petition due to her being a former trustee of LCCIt would be good to see the actual report rather than relying on the telegraph or daily mail for accurate reporting.
I mean come on, why be so blatantly dishonest about this?
Meanwhile, since 2018 when that article is from, Newham have been installing LTNs, and (some of?) these have been made permanent: Two Newham Low Traffic Neighbourhoods recommended to be made permanent after successful trial – Newham Council
(nb: as the link says, this recommendation was approved)
So as far as they are concerned, LTNs improved air quality. It looks like they only measured on one boundary road but that saw a 7% fall in NO2 (and is located between the two LTNs, so it's where you'd expect to see the biggest increase, if there was to be one.
Meanwhile we have a peer reviewed study from Imperial College, published Nov 2022:
Evaluation of low traffic neighbourhood (LTN) impacts on NO2 and traffic
Traffic restriction measures may create safer and healthier places for community members but may also displace traffic and air pollution to surroundin…www.sciencedirect.com
Low-traffic neighbourhoods reduce pollution in surrounding streets | Imperial News | Imperial College London
Low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) reduce traffic and air pollution without displacing the problem to nearby streets, new research has shown.www.imperial.ac.uk
or you could look at this 2021 study by CERC in Lambeth:
Which showed NO2 reductions on what I assume internal roads and increases on boundary roads (I live in Birmingham, so I don't really know which these roads are). They say the overall effect of the LTN on NO2, and the two Particulate pollution measures is negligible.
but of course the imperial college one is newer and all the reporting on it is making it hard to find other studies.
Low-traffic zone success ‘based on inaccurate data’ Low-traffic zone success ‘based on inaccurate data’
liquidindian
Hello
I can't read the article, and don't really want to, but the limitations of traffic measurements are called out in the research being criticised. Sounds like the standard tactic of going to the section of any research that looks at the limitations and yelling LOOK IT'S NOT PERFECT THEY ADMIT IT.
liquidindian
Hello
Andrew Ellson is the sort of guy to tweet about "LTN zealots" and went completely deranged on twitter when someone in favour of filtering roads he had disagreed with took a black cab somewhere. Pinches of salt required.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
That's poor but:
(a) we're talking about pollution, and pollution monitors are not traffic counting monitors, and are not affected by this undercounting.
(b) none of the research I quoted was done by Rachel Aldred
(c) the limitation of the traffic counters is acknowledged in the peer reviewed research done by Rachel Aldred
(d) If the methodology changes between baseline on post intervention counts then it's an even less valid comparison. A CCTV count may be more accurate, and should be done for future comparisons, but unless you have pre-pandemic CCTV counts you won't be able to make any worthwhile comparison to pre-ltn intervention. How much it's undercounting is going to be a factor of how much more time is spent below the iirc 6mph it can't count to previously. Anytime you had that slow traffic before, and have that slow traffic now, it won't be undercounting.
the one for the Stoke Newington LTN confirms a drop on almost every single boundary road except Green Lanes (which went up 7.5%) - so that doesn't agree with your premise.
ianarmstrong
Active Member
Talk about the content of my posts not about me
ianarmstrong
Active Member
In Lambeth they used traffic count data to model pollution levels so their data is flawed - if other councils issued the same company to do this then it is reasonable to suspect the same flawed monitoring has been used elsewhere too
ianarmstrong
Active Member
Article in the Times highlighting how LTN traffic count monitoring equipment significantly underestimates traffic by between 5% and 35% and how it does not take in to account congestion as it is not designed to monitor stop-start-idling traffic - it also points out the conflict of interest in appointing Rachel Aldred's Active Travel Academy of University of Westminster to perform a review for the petition due to her being a former trustee of LCC
BigTom
Well-Known Member
It's not reasonable to suspect anything when you have a peer reviewed paper which sets out its methodology clearly for you. Especially when it's clearly different organisations doing the different research.
If you decide to rely on newspaper journalists for your reports then of course you have to make assumptions because they won't tell you these things.
But if you go for peer reviewed work then no assumptions are necessary.
bellaozzydog
rolling turds in glitter
Just fuck off aye
Artaxerxes
Look out, he's got a gnu!
Rumbled
ianarmstrong
Active Member
Strange that you don't see a problem with claims based on flawed data and seek to brush it under the carpet - if the counting equipment is not counting as many as 5% to 35% of any vehicles passing by and is not designed to assess congestion then you cannot be confident of any traffic counting or pollutions claims being made based on that equipment - if your bank was not registering 5% to 35% of your deposits I'm sure you would not be so quick to dismiss it!
ianarmstrong
Active Member
Yes you have been rumbled as someone who has to refer to someone's personal characteristics in order to progress your argument - I know nothing about you but I don't want to know anything about you - stick to the content of the discussion and leave out the personal stuff
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
ianarmstrong Would sir care to sample some other threads / forums ?
BigTom
Well-Known Member
Now I am going to insult you.
Fuck off you stupid disingenous cunt.
Two of the three studies i posted use air quality monitoring not traffic counts, as i said, you could read the studies i posted but you prefer not to because you don't like what they say I guess.
I already said it was poor but not relevant to what i posted, and that if you want to do pre installation comparisons you have to stick to the same methodology you used before even if it's flawed. Yes take CCTV counts from now to use for future comparisons but you can't use them for past comparisons.
How much were the traffic counts undercounting pre installation? Same equipment, same flaw right?
ianarmstrong
Active Member
Wow - if you said that to me in the street then that would be the end of the conversation so I don’t see how you think you can proceed to have a rationale discussion after say that
ianarmstrong
Active Member
The imperial college study is based on data from Islington council that they had to apologiseIt would be good to see the actual report rather than relying on the telegraph or daily mail for accurate reporting.
I mean come on, why be so blatantly dishonest about this?
Meanwhile, since 2018 when that article is from, Newham have been installing LTNs, and (some of?) these have been made permanent: Two Newham Low Traffic Neighbourhoods recommended to be made permanent after successful trial – Newham Council
(nb: as the link says, this recommendation was approved)
So as far as they are concerned, LTNs improved air quality. It looks like they only measured on one boundary road but that saw a 7% fall in NO2 (and is located between the two LTNs, so it's where you'd expect to see the biggest increase, if there was to be one.
Meanwhile we have a peer reviewed study from Imperial College, published Nov 2022:
Evaluation of low traffic neighbourhood (LTN) impacts on NO2 and traffic
Traffic restriction measures may create safer and healthier places for community members but may also displace traffic and air pollution to surroundin…Low-traffic neighbourhoods reduce pollution in surrounding streets | Imperial News | Imperial College London
Low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) reduce traffic and air pollution without displacing the problem to nearby streets, new research has shown.
or you could look at this 2021 study by CERC in Lambeth:
Which showed NO2 reductions on what I assume internal roads and increases on boundary roads (I live in Birmingham, so I don't really know which these roads are). They say the overall effect of the LTN on NO2, and the two Particulate pollution measures is negligible.
but of course the imperial college one is newer and all the reporting on it is making it hard to find other studies.
Islington council apologises for wrongly claiming LTNs reduced pollution
The findings of the report were distributed to 14,500 households
Here are some more details explaining how this imperial college study is cherry picking data
Last edited:
ianarmstrong
Active Member
The study produced by for Lambeth uses traffic counts to model pollution levels and as the article in the Times pointed out these traffic counters undercount by between 5% and 35% so any results will be under counting traffic numbers and any pollution modelling data will likewise be under estimating pollution levels - the traffic counters don't detect stop-start-idling traffic so again there is a lack of accuracy of the data - I'm not going to accept any study or report no matter how many people have peer reviewed it or how many people have posted it claiming it to represent the truth if they are based on flawed data counts and errant dataIt would be good to see the actual report rather than relying on the telegraph or daily mail for accurate reporting.
I mean come on, why be so blatantly dishonest about this?
Meanwhile, since 2018 when that article is from, Newham have been installing LTNs, and (some of?) these have been made permanent: Two Newham Low Traffic Neighbourhoods recommended to be made permanent after successful trial – Newham Council
(nb: as the link says, this recommendation was approved)
So as far as they are concerned, LTNs improved air quality. It looks like they only measured on one boundary road but that saw a 7% fall in NO2 (and is located between the two LTNs, so it's where you'd expect to see the biggest increase, if there was to be one.
Meanwhile we have a peer reviewed study from Imperial College, published Nov 2022:
Evaluation of low traffic neighbourhood (LTN) impacts on NO2 and traffic
Traffic restriction measures may create safer and healthier places for community members but may also displace traffic and air pollution to surroundin…Low-traffic neighbourhoods reduce pollution in surrounding streets | Imperial News | Imperial College London
Low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) reduce traffic and air pollution without displacing the problem to nearby streets, new research has shown.
or you could look at this 2021 study by CERC in Lambeth:
Which showed NO2 reductions on what I assume internal roads and increases on boundary roads (I live in Birmingham, so I don't really know which these roads are). They say the overall effect of the LTN on NO2, and the two Particulate pollution measures is negligible.
but of course the imperial college one is newer and all the reporting on it is making it hard to find other studies.
Last edited:
ianarmstrong
Active Member
Your link to the Newham report is just the council claiming they were successful in reducing the traffic in the LTN and it's boundary roads which is not a surprise as all of the councils are doing the same all over London but their success criteria is a fraud as it is not difficult to achieve - all they need to do is to persuade just 1 driver to avoid the LTN area all together in order to be able to claim they have reduced the traffic - that will be easy to achieve as the boundary roads will have been made busier and more congested by LTN internal street displaced traffic so a number of drivers when encountering that will probably decide to avoid the area and take an alternate route which the LTN monitoring scheme will not monitor (another deliberate slight of hand by whoever designed the monitoring strategy) so hey presto you have your success criteria fulfilled - I suspect the LTN monitoring designers came up with this rouse of not monitoring all of the displaced traffic as they knew it would enable them to fraudulently claim success - this is why the whole thing needs to be properly reviewed and not by any of the active travel supporting universities or so called charities who have been involved to date as they are all part of the problemIt would be good to see the actual report rather than relying on the telegraph or daily mail for accurate reporting.
I mean come on, why be so blatantly dishonest about this?
Meanwhile, since 2018 when that article is from, Newham have been installing LTNs, and (some of?) these have been made permanent: Two Newham Low Traffic Neighbourhoods recommended to be made permanent after successful trial – Newham Council
(nb: as the link says, this recommendation was approved)
So as far as they are concerned, LTNs improved air quality. It looks like they only measured on one boundary road but that saw a 7% fall in NO2 (and is located between the two LTNs, so it's where you'd expect to see the biggest increase, if there was to be one.
Meanwhile we have a peer reviewed study from Imperial College, published Nov 2022:
Evaluation of low traffic neighbourhood (LTN) impacts on NO2 and traffic
Traffic restriction measures may create safer and healthier places for community members but may also displace traffic and air pollution to surroundin…Low-traffic neighbourhoods reduce pollution in surrounding streets | Imperial News | Imperial College London
Low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) reduce traffic and air pollution without displacing the problem to nearby streets, new research has shown.
or you could look at this 2021 study by CERC in Lambeth:
Which showed NO2 reductions on what I assume internal roads and increases on boundary roads (I live in Birmingham, so I don't really know which these roads are). They say the overall effect of the LTN on NO2, and the two Particulate pollution measures is negligible.
but of course the imperial college one is newer and all the reporting on it is making it hard to find other studies.
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
Grow up you sad twat
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
Once upon a time this place was for these antics
now it’s pandering to gammon nimbys.
now it’s pandering to gammon nimbys.
BigTom
Well-Known Member
Indeed. And yet, for you, online, it has meant that you've actually tried to respond to what I've said rather than repeating stuff which I've already responded to.
Re: the imperial college study. This is not the same one. The one I posted is from November 2022. If you read the article you posted it says:
(my emphasis)
Paul Lomax's criticisms of the report I posted have been responded to by others on twitter, and we'll see what the journal's and/or author's responses are. The great thing about peer reviewed journals is that they get to go through this kind of critical process unlike newspaper reports. We can see all their methodology and get to criticise it. Meanwhile you post newspaper reports which make claims with no methodology behind them and assume they have no flaws at all because you agree with what they are saying.
I have literally no idea at all what on earth the screenshot you posted has to do with anything at all. Seems like you broke planning laws by placing something that looks like a road sign somewhere it could be confused for being a legal road sign? Is this the kind of law abiding behaviour you were thinking about in our earlier conversation about taxing EV electricity?
Lambeth one yes as I accepted it's based on traffic counts which are undercounting - now my question to you is given that we need to compare to pre-ltn installation, what is the best way to do that? How much was the traffic undercounted before, given that they were using the same methodology both before and after? Because the truth is that there is no methodology that is without flaws, and it's a strength, not a weakness, to acknowledge those flaws, and be able to account for them. So please let us know how you think we should make comparisons.
Newham, no, go and read the report and like I said it's from a pollution monitor on a shared boundary road, it's got nothing to do with traffic counts and your whole claim is nonsense - whether the traffic counts are flawed or not, no council claims what you are saying and the reports I've seen from most places say that traffic has risen on most boundary roads which is exactly the opposite of what you are saying councils are claiming.
Now I challenge you to find me one peer-reviewed study - not a newspaper report of one but the actual study - which goes against what the academics you dislike are saying. Because I'm not interested in continuing a conversation with you when it's clear you are going to discount any academic study in favour of your own pre-set beliefs.
krtek a houby
Merry Xmas!
Too much traffic?
I don’t think anyone would have listed to you talking nonsense for a couple of weeks in the street though
rubbershoes
not the only raver in the village
There were some traffic policy protestors in Exeter yesterday. Their display was a mix of complaints about Exeter Council and copies of anti lockdown and all round conspiracy paper The Light. There was also something about the Rothschilds 
. Showing where a lot of their thinking leads
I made them aware they don't have my support
. Showing where a lot of their thinking leadsI made them aware they don't have my support
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
The two are intrinsically linked, fella.
ianarmstrong
Active Member
Lambeth should accept that their monitoring of traffic and pollution is not sufficient to declare their LTNs a success due to the various flaws in the equipment and methodology employed and they should seek to address the issues that have been reported to them and look to mitigate them by relaxing the LTN restrictions in one way or another or remove the LTNs and seek alternate measures to address what they claim they are attempting to do which is to reduce traffic and pollution - If they insist in their want to reduce traffic and address climate change then they need to implement a much wider monitoring strategy that covers much more of the area around an LTN and better still the whole of the borough and I would like to see them install actual air monitoring equipment at all the main traffic junctions, pinch points and roads where the LTN traffic is being displaced or where traffic is heavy or there are issues with traffic numbers or congestion.
Lambeth council are claiming that when they assess the LTN and it's boundary roads excluding any other roads where traffic may have been displaced to the traffic has reduced and by virtue of their modelling methods they also claim pollution reduced - they exclude any displacement routes so there is no way of knowing if the traffic did actually go down as a result of the LTN but they do concede that boundary roads often see more traffic
I'm not going to accept studies by active travel supporting academics who are clearly LTN supporters when flaws in their studies are pointed out no matter how many people have peer reviewed them as they have failed to respond to the criticisms levied against their studies which I am sure they are aware of and they are receiving significant amounts of money to continue to study LTNs so maybe they don't want to admit their failings and put at risk that funding
My position is based on seeing how manipulative the whole LTN imposition process has been and when issues are reported to councils and academics they are ignored or brushed under the carpet or side-stepped one way or another
I am asking for more monitoring, democracy, transparency and honesty from all concerned and a desire to address issues instead of brushing them aside and manipulation of the truth and gaslighting people reporting issues.
ianarmstrong
Active Member
Not really - I've not referenced any of your personal characteristics or traits - it's not hard to talk about the content of what people say without referencing them personally
Similar threads
