Bettiol lobs bottle at cameraman filming him suffering with cramp at Tour Down Under; Rohan Dennis wins TDU stage 2; "A fast 200": Remco Evenepoel and the Soudal-QuickStep boys casually smash out 200km in just over five hours + more on the live blog

BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP wrote:

Councillors said the £250,000 active travel project needed to stay within budget, meaning the cycle lanes have been removed from the plans and the new widened footpath will be 50cm narrower than previously stated. This is to allow the road to return to two lanes...
 

yea right. Of course it's just too expensive. It's cheaper to make the pavement narrower. 

There are much better experts on active travel on here than me... but surely the proposal invalidates the purpose if the budget? It's really really expensive to return funds.

Car Delenda Est wrote:

Am I right in thinking Devon council used active travel funding to make a one-way a two-way?

Queen Street was previously a two way road but has had a temporary cycle lane put in, since COVID, which has fully blocked one of the lanes for part of the length of the road (between Northernhay and Paul st). They always would have done something with it as the temporary solution, involving temporary traffic lights and planters, was pretty shoddy.

But yes, they are using active travel budget to increase the carriageway from it's current (albeit temporarily restricted) width. It's an abysmal proposal.

Ambushed by a back seat...

ChuckSneed wrote:

Once again, you can avoid the problems of the bike lane being blocked by just riding in the road parking your vehicle legally

(edited - just realised Owd Big Ead got there first!)

nosferatu1001 wrote:

How is this an "active travel" project when it removes the cycle lane, narrows the pavement and reinstates 2 way car lanes?  

Honestly, it's all a complete farce. If they wanted to do something positive, they could extend the pedestrianisation out to Exeter Central station and leave the car parks accessible from the North Street side only. It would prevent Queen Street being so busy and unpleasant.

But they won't.

This one ?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/19/low-traffic-neighbourhoo...

but, but, but, but.... My car centric intuitive view says loony lefty LTNs push traffic to other areas!!!!!

"Appears" to show, or as the researchers say themselves "suggests" which are very important qualifiers that alot of people seem to be missing.

I can see this increasingly being my new bugbear where research gets cited as absolute proof by proponents simply to shutdown valid debate.

These are the correct words for a proper scientific study of this type to use. There are too many variables in human behaviour and travel for them all to be excluded entirely. When a researcher says it "appears" to show something they are telling you that they don't have another plausible explanation. I agree that this does not mean there isn't one, but you can be sure that an unscientific approach, in the absence of any evidence would make absolute statements of opinion represented as fact.

If there are any alternative interpetations of the data I would be interested, but I suspect that the real benefit of LTNs is not about cutting down through traffic, but about encouraging the local residents to walk/ cycle for 5 minutes rather than drive for 2 minutes, hence why there is a reduction around the LTN not an increase as some predicted. It is important to note that this will not necessarily be the same for all LTNs depending on the nature of the traffic before, the demographic of local residents and the proximity of amenities.

Dismissing "appears" is the same as dismissing the term "theory" (when used correctly). 

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Dismissing "appears" is the same as dismissing the term "theory" (when used correctly). 

as in

"You can't tell me evolution is real, it's only a theory"

I've no issue with this study, it properly explains its limitations and the need for more data and research to continue on it.

My issue is the way the study is grabbed by proponents of LTNs as if its simply THE ultimate conclusive proof, when its not. Even by the very charity who commissioned it who talk about how we should make data led decisions citing a study that actually concluded we need more data on this !!!

And I just wish people would approach a study like this as hey this data shows something interesting about LTNs that counters a narrative they increase traffic, let's try a few more and see where we get with them.Not treat it like but study says so it must be so.

One thing the study didnt mention is post Covid peoples driving patterns have changed, the roads are much more quiet on Mondays/Fridays than they are midweek, I suspect alot of traffic evaporation might be explained by that.

I thought changes in traffic patterns over time were included? I must admit I only read the article not the study. As this covers pre/post Covid times and looks at inside/outside LTNs then surely that should naturally take pre/post Covid changes into account.

i do agree with your comments on the desire for binary position supporting PROOF. I think that is driven by the confrontational nature of social media. It could also be related to poor education in statistics - a significant link is not necessarily proof of causality for example. 
 

And I very much agree with your point that this seems to show that the world isn't going to end thanks to LTNs and maybe we should try a few more well designed ones and do more research as to their impact. I would be really interested in air quality impacts for example.

This is what it says on the charity's website:
"The truth about low traffic neighbourhoods
We’ve conducted the biggest ever study into the impact of LTNs and the evidence is in: they work."

Awavey wrote:

One thing the study didnt mention is post Covid peoples driving patterns have changed, the roads are much more quiet on Mondays/Fridays than they are midweek, I suspect alot of traffic evaporation might be explained by that.

Do you have any data on that? (since data is what you were talking about)

No obvious drop in traffic volumes in & around Shrewsbury on Mondays and Fridays sadly, but there is feck-all cycling infrastructure, a rather cycling-hostile county council while the appalling bus services can't be helping either.

Where's that downvote button?