| Topic: | Re:LTNs and the definition of a residential road | |
| Posted by: | Marie Power | |
| Date/Time: | 27/12/22 14:23:00 |
| London Cycling Campaign's descriptors are interesting: "Low traffic neighbourhoods are groups of residential streets, bordered by main, or distributor, roads (the places where buses, lorries, and non-local traffic should be)." No nod therefore to residential/non-residential. Their position is that "cutting through-traffic on side streets doesn’t add significantly to congestion on main roads after the first few months." They acknowledge that there might be CONCERN that increased congestion and pollution on main roads will happen but suggest that is all it is - concern not factual. Displaced traffic will evaporate. They even put a figure on this "Around 15% of displaced traffic disappears from the area entirely as drivers adjust routes and behaviour". So how much longer must we wait for evaporation then? It was only supposed to be a few months. And what about the other 85% of displaced traffic? Does that evaporate too after a while? Waltham Forest (often quoted) may be a traffic nirvana but there are plenty of other areas in London that are really suffering. I fear you are right, Jeremy, and that LTN theory is a zero-sum game. Benefits for some (less traffic, cleaner air and all the health benefits which go with that) counterbalanced by disbenefits for others (increased traffic, congestion and pollution and all the health disbenefits which go with those). And these inequalities will only become more pronounced with changes in property prices in the two types of area brought about by the perceived desirability of living in an LTN. |