| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:LTNs and the definition of a residential road | |
| Posted by: | Tom Pike | |
| Date/Time: | 28/12/22 10:08:00 |
| Bill, the comparison was between January 2020 and May 2021. After the closure of Fishers Lane trips were more direct both for those beginning and/or ending locally as well as passing through. Traffic on Fishers Lane used to be fairly constant from 8 am to 8 pm at 400 to 600 vehicles an hour, seven days a week: it wasn’t congestion that on the whole drove that traffic, simply a preference to avoid the lights at TGT and Acton Lane. But that choice came at a cost to other traffic: one of the reasons why the running times of the 267 has measurably improved along the High Road in the last two years is because of the reduced delays due to exiting traffic negotiating the unsignalled junction at the southern end of Fishers Lane. Altogether the evidence is that the closure has benefitted the running times of buses along South Parade, the High Road as well as obviously Fishers Lane itself. I’m surprised you are not applauding this! The Centre for London recently reviewed the effect of LTNs of traffic. They found unsurprisingly they reduced traffic with in LTN in all of the 10 examples they listed. But traffic only increased on 3 of the 10 boundary roads and fell on 5, with data updated for June 2022. Of course critics can always say that more observations are needed, but they are less willing to accept that to date there is little evidence that LTNs inevitably lead to more traffic on their boundary roads. https://www.centreforlondon.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CFL-StreetShift-LTNs-Final.pdf |