Harringay online

Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!

Well this makes for interesting reading. A government report commissioned in the hopes of finding evidence of the unpopularity and ineffectiveness of LTNs finds them both popular and effective. It also dispelled the myth that traffic is just displaced to boundary roads. Upon reading the report, the government, of course, tried to suppress it as it doesn't support their ideology. Bring on the straw man arguments in the comments!


Views: 752

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Who'd a thunk it, the quiet majority who have to suffer the air pollution, noise and traffic of the minority of car drivers finally get streets that are actually liveable.

Jesus wept - A DfT spokesperson said: “We are clear that many local authorities have not put local residents first when implementing low-traffic neighbourhoods. We are backing motorists and will produce new guidance focused on the importance of securing strong local support.”

Of course if you read a different paper - The Times, same day, "

Low-traffic neighbourhoods “potentially risk lives” because of the delays they cause to emergency services, ­according to a long-awaited government review.

The zones add “precious seconds and minutes” to response times because of physical barriers in the roads, one ­ambulance service told the study.

The official review, ordered by Rishi Sunak last summer, also found that each low-traffic neighbourhood (LTN) had fined an average of 36,400 drivers since 2020. One scheme has ticketed 170,000 drivers, meaning it has generated up to £22 million for its council.

A senior government source provided details of the review to The Times after a draft copy was leaked to The Guardian.

The Guardian reported that the ­review found LTNs worked and were ­popular, but this was denied by the source who claimed the newspaper had ­“selectively plucked” details from the study and not fairly represented “the very real concerns” it contained."

Hmm… if it successfully backed up the government’s ideology, why did they try to bury it? Interesting also that The Times chose to ignore the positives eh. I wonder why?

The LTN introduced to Green Lanes/West Green Road/Westbury Rd etc in November 2022. Has done very little to reduce car journeys. 

Fact: The traffic on West Green Road from where it starts at Turnpike Lane, to Belmont Road and often beyond (where people liv) is significantly increased during rush hour periods or any busy period, or any road closure or road works. for most days of the year.  I know this because I live near West Green Road and I have seen it over the last year and 4 months with my own eyes, (no government report needed)' I suspect this is the same for Westbury Ave (where people liv) and the remaining boundary roads of the LTN: where people live. 

Fact: You cannot conclude that this LTN is working when the people who live on boundary roads have a huge increase in traffic.  

Fact: Traffic is merely being displaced, is not "evaporating"

Fact: Car drivers are just putting up with it. Most car drivers are simply enduring  any delays the LTN is unequivocally causing on the boundary roads. And only a small amount of car drivers might be changing their decision to not use their car as a direct result of a LTN. 

Fact:  You might be able to persuade "some" people to cycle or walk, but without a genuinely efficient and robust, properly funded public transport system that is good for everyone no matter where they live, people are demonstrably still choosing to drive and put up with the miserable delays. Until public transport is significantly better, LTN's will remain controversial and divisive.  

Hi Sam. Can you back any of these 'facts' up with any research or proof at all? Otherwise this is really just your opinion and is subject to scrutiny and cynicism. Simply writing FACT next to an opinion that isn't backed up sadly doesn't make it a fact at all.

Witnessing traffic with your own eyes for over 365 days makes it fact

i live inside the LTN so I am well placed to know…

Seeing the traffic being significantly increased on a daily basis on the  boundary roads is not subjective or opinion based… it’s a fact.

With regard to peoples behaviour in their decision to endure traffic that might be harder to state as fact  but it’s extremely close to being factual, and completely reasonable to assume given the compelling evidence of increased traffic. 

No, then. 

Yes I can see that, judging from that response you have a sort of obduracy about you. Which I don’t propose to engage with. 

If by ‘obduracy’ you mean I engage with empirical facts and researched proof while rejecting hearsay, rumour and unsupported opinion then, yes, I’m as obdurate at they come. But asking for facts and research to back up a feeling or theory that someone has, to subsequently engage in a discussion, is literally the opposite of obduracy. You might change my mind, but to do that I would need more than writing down a feeling you have on a local forum. (And something more compelling than repeatedly prefacing these opinions with the word ‘Fact’.) For instance, traffic numbers have been increasing exponentially in London for many years, which is why we have to be careful apportioning that increase to an LTN. It may be just part of that process. Who knows? Answer: people who carry out research and whatnot. Like the research that kicked off this forum. Sorry Sam, but just loudly listing a selection of your opinions is not a particularly compelling argument, obdurate or not. 

The last statement (the difficulty of persuading motorists onto public transport) was more opinion based  I would grant you.  But the other statements were facts. Not opinions.

And who or when was it decided that you are to police local forums? There is something slightly pompous about your tone" I would need more than a feeling or a theory" or " Sorry Sam but listing your opinions" this is pretty condescending -The implication sort of being that this isn't going to satisfy your self-appointed remit on measuring the success of a local traffic scheme.  My post was shouty yes, but fact based in the sense of real experience... not surveys or data, which is what I suspect you are only interested in. One might argue that this is a form of obduracy. 

For you to ignore the blatant truth about why the traffic on West Green Road has significantly increased causing pollution to those people that live there from day the LTN was introduced is a form of obduracy and shows you to be unwilling to believe any hard first-hand based witnessed evidence. You are implying that I am telling lies about what I have experienced and have witnessed over the last 18 months.  Again the implication sort of being I am being hysterical (which is pretty patronising)

You are considerably downplaying the traffic increase on boundary roads. You insist on this being "evidenced" ( which I personally provided of the real type) but one might ask you the same question? Where is your evidence based on real first-hand experience that this LTN in this area is proving to be a success? 

The Guardian says official research into the LTNs effectiveness is limited, and the rest of the research consisted of polls of residents and some non-residents on their opinions of the LTNs. To my mind that makes the report itself not very fact heavy.

Quote "For instance, traffic numbers have been increasing exponentially in London for many years" - I rather doubt that traffic numbers have been increasing exponentially - exaggeration on this scale doesn't take any argument any further forward.  When this report is actually published it might take us a little further forward but selective comments to back one point of view don't help, nor do demands for 'proof' when residents witness with their own eyes the pressure caused.  If someone says that traffic volumes have increased on the boundary roads then the correct response if you don't accept it is for you to show 'proof' that it hasn't...



© 2024   Created by Hugh.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service