• There's been a lot of past research on modal filtering, and it's always shown that area-wide, overall motor traffic levels go down. The argument that main streets are then far more polluted is vastly exaggerated. Overall, air quality will improve. However, it also has to be said that a lot of filtering schemes are poor and could be done a lot better, and the problems caused by that lack of quality will always cause anger. Plenty have been taken out again in the past. Let's hope that the current run establishes the principle more widely so that they can be improved later.

  • Yep; I don't have a problem with LTNs and whatnot, I have a problem with the Guardian declaring victory over the non-believers in the bluntest and most dismissive terms on a fairly flimsy pretext.

  • Oh right. Science then.

  • Science then

    The dismal science. It's perfectly ordinary economic theory that if you put the cost of travel up, then marginal journeys will be forgone. It's also pretty well established that wealth generates flexibilty, so poor people are penalised by regulations and taxes more than rich people, because they are mostly not able to avoid the imposition, and if they do they are much less able to generate the value forgone by alternative economic activity.

  • Cycle campaigners say a lot of very glib things that need more thought, and the Grauniad is likely to reflect that perspective unquestioningly. I know, because I used to say many of the same things for years. It's not a slight on campaigners; there's so much to read and study and it's a case of ain't nobody got time for that. However, when you look at things more carefully, a different picture emerges. In the case of LTNs, well, of course there are drawbacks--anything that could be done has them--, e.g. as I always say about all forms of 'traffic calming', it's actually, on the face of it, absurd to block the passage of certain road users, to install humps or chicanes, etc.--roads are supposed to be facilities for spatial movement, after all. However, urban streets are not just 'roads' from A to B but more multi-functional, yet because of automobilism being what it is acquire a very strong character of facilitating movement at the expense of their other functions, such as facilitating neighbourly chatting. This then becomes oppressive and well warrants action, but the aim to discourage through motor traffic in inappropriate environments also hits a number of other people who are doing perfectly innocent and useful things with their cars, and you can't be glib about that, and it's also why the schemes need to be as good as they can be. I mean, I'd love a world in which car use was a small exception to the rule, but too few people currently agree.

  • claim-low-traffic-schemes-only-benefit-b­etter-off-debunked-in-new-study

    I agree, the rather click-baitey link does not do what it says.

    The main argument seems to be that most people (including most poor people) live on residential streets. Except for the 1 in 10 that don't.

  • Have you looked at the article? It's really about how bad that particular article is. It does nothing to take seriously people's concerns.

  • I thought I was going mad, but,

    The main argument seems to be that most people (including most poor people) live on residential streets. Except for the 1 in 10 that don't.

    Does seem to be 'it'.

    The article is utter shit. Proper Fake News type stuff. 'We' are better than this.

    Not sure about the study. Not sure they were looking for. But hardly an impartial disinterested source (which obviously isn't the real problem, but I lol'd at that, too).

  • I only skimmed the article and the study, but fake news seems a little harsh - am I missing something? Part of the study is a first-cut equality impact for LTNs, based on demographic data. This appears to show that even if LTNs were to displace all through traffic onto high streets and main roads (and AFAICS the study challenges that claim) this does not appear to have a disproportionate effect on any one income or racial group. The article then just says 'a claim of disproportionate impact on lower-income groups has been made by LTN opponents; this study shows that isn't the case'.

  • my point is "traffic is bad".

    we are (and always were) on the same page then

    I am just lightly trolling you

    xo

  • I think I agree that the article isnt well written or is very guardian but thats their brand 🤷🏽♂️

    There are better articles, I can link through but @Oliver Schick has documented them well in the past.

    Modal filters/LTN work for everyone no matter who says it Breitbart or Guardian.

  • Yes, I have, and that's kind of what I was trying to talk about at first, and I then tried to give some examples. Sadly, I couldn't write the 20-page essay it deserved. :)

  • I've been meaning to write lots of long and boring stuff in the 'Modal filtering' thread, but I haven't had time yet.

    https://www.lfgss.com/conversations/3532­38/

  • right


    2 Attachments

    • fry.png
    • 1OS.JPG
  • Ha, if it was only the writing of the comments, it wouldn't be a problem. It's more a case of looking at loads of new and newish stuff, e.g. research papers, project reports, and so on, that takes time.

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview
About

The coronavirus crisis and the environment / reduction in transport emissions in particular

Posted by Avatar for Oliver Schick @Oliver Schick

Actions