Forum Topic

Initial data indicates LTNs …

… may be effective in reducing distances driven:https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jun/12/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-ltn-may-lead-people-drive-less-london?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Michael Ixer ● 734d8 Comments

Barbara, with statistical analysis one is looking at general trends not individual cases. (In fact, I'd guess from a GDPR perspective, it would be important that the data is "anonymised" so individual cases couldn't be identified.)

Interestingly, as it's taken from MOT data it's likely that company car data would be excluded as most would be less than three years old.

Michael Ixer ● 733d

How can you tell, if somebody works for a company, they may have a company car, live in Dartford and drive to Putney each day. Or drive large company vehicles. One of the post delivery men told me he came from Basingstoke and drove for Putney sorting office. so work that one out.

Barbara Stevens ● 733d

No one said it "proved" anything. It could, however, be an indicator that those living in LTNs start to drive less so if one increases the number of LTNs overall there could be fewer miles driven: both good for the environment and climate change; and health if there's less pollution plus more walking and cycling. Normally with statistics one's looking at trends so a few more years' data is needed to know if it's meaningful or a blip.The data wasn't showing where people drove to, just the increase/decrease in mileage based on whether they lived within an LTN, within 200 metres of one or further than 200 metres away.The biggest omission, as I noted earlier, is the omission of cars less than three years old. Do those with newer cars drive more? In that case they might skew the statistics in a different way?

Michael Ixer ● 733d

All the MOT dstacwill show is drivers address not where the car travels, so it's a non survey that proves nothing.

Andy Pike ● 733d

Ivonne, the other obvious problem is the data won't include any cars less than three years old as they do not require MOTs. As noted, it is just a possible indicator, not proof!

Michael Ixer ● 733d

I confess, I did not read the whole article!  I did skim through it and noted the mention of the MOTs but the reduction was 0.7km a day.  The article states:"It (the study) showed an average decline in driving of 0.7km (0.4 miles) a day for every vehicle inside LTNs, two years after they were installed, compared with a rise of 0.6km for streets 200 metres or more outside their boundaries, for a net 1.3km (0.8 miles) reduction, or 6.4%."I wholeheartedly agree that I do not understand the statistics for traffic outside the boundaries of the LTNs in Lambeth.  If there was a rise of 0.6km.... for a net 1.3km reduction, or 6.4%...."People living the closest to the LTNs, within 200 metres of their edges, who would be expected to be most affected by such changes to driving trips, recorded an increase in their average driving levels, but by less than those further away."  (??????????)So, the question must be, how do they know where the drivers outside the LNT boundaries were coming from.  They say there was a 6.4% reduction post COVID (no mention of percentages for areas within the LNT though).I am always sceptical of statistics, whatever the subject, as results can be manipulated without much problem.

Ivonne Holliday ● 734d

If you read the article it was done by analysing mileage statistics from MOT data.

Michael Ixer ● 734d

I am quoting from the article:"Residents in London borough cut their driving by nearly a mile a day after LTNs introduced, says study"...."While the research covers only four LTNs created in 2020, it is potentially significant because it contradicts the objection from opponents of the schemes that they make people drive further on less direct routes."....I wonder how they got these statistics.....

Ivonne Holliday ● 734d