Author name: Steven Edwards

Those are still the basic objections, but these days most prominent opponents realise that it sounds a bit politically incorrect. You need some higher public interest ground, however shaky, to pitch your tent on.
With low-traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs), which use motor traffic restrictions to boost walking and cycling, the top choice used to be claiming that they increase pollution. But that has now been so thoroughly debunked that it’s losing its magic.
So a new variant appeared recently in the Times, claiming that “councils that implemented LTNs during the pandemic have seen bigger increases in car use than boroughs that did not”.

A car free future? Polling shows half of Londoners want a city without cars

More than two thirds of people polled in London, Paris and New York favour a reduction in cars, survey shows
Adam Becket 23 November 2022

A car free future is seen by many as a necessity in this age of climate crisis, and it seems like it is supported by many across three major global cities.
Polling of residents of London, New York and Paris by Survation for the pressure group Car Free Megacities(opens in new tab) showed that around half of people favour their city centres going car free, with exceptions, and more than two-thirds support a reduction in the number of vehicles in their urban areas.
The data showed that from a sample of 1,073 people in London, 1,095 in Paris and 1,085 in New York, 72%, 66%, and 72% of the population respectively support cutting cars in the city.

National Highways has released what it describes as the ‘latest’ Outline Business Case for the Lower Thames Crossing in response to a judgement by the Information Commissioner on an application by Thurrock Council, who are objecting to the scheme (LTT856, 31 October).

The document is a 100-page report over two years old, dated 26.8.2020, Professor Phil Goodwin, who has been assisting the council, told LTT.
The cover letter says that it is ‘reflective of the proposals at that time’, but that due to changes since then ‘the information in the Outline Business Case has therefore been superseded’ and a revised report will be provided online by the Planning Inspectorate.
It seems that an updated Business Case will only be finalised after approval of the scheme, so the the supporting case is partly dependent on information which is superseded.

Abstract

Traffic restriction measures may create safer and healthier places for community members but may also displace traffic and air pollution to surrounding streets. Effective urban planning depends on understanding the magnitude of changes resulting from policy measures, both within and surrounding intervention areas; these are largely unstudied in the case of Low traffic Neighbourhoods (LTN). We evaluated impacts of three LTNs in the London Borough of Islington, UK, on air pollution and traffic flows in and around intervention areas, based on monthly Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) and traffic volume data provided by the local authority. We identified pre- and post-intervention monitoring periods and intervention, boundary and control sites. We then adapted the generalised difference in differences approach to evaluate the effects within LTNs and at their boundary. We found that LTNs have the potential to substantially reduce air pollution and traffic in target areas, without increasing air pollution or traffic volumes in surrounding streets. These results provide sound arguments in favour of LTNs to promote health and wellbeing in urban communities.

Phoebe Weston
Chris Packham: ‘Cop, after Cop, after Cop, with cop-out, after cop-out, after cop-out, is not serving humanity or the planet.’ Photograph: Peter Flude/The Guardian
Chris Packham is urging the British prime minister, Rishi Sunak, to attend a key nature summit to protect the planet for the sake of his great-grandchildren because we are “very close to the point of no return”.
The Cop15 biodiversity summit being held in Montreal from 7-19 December is the nature equivalent of the recent Cop27 climate summit in Egypt, with governments from all over the world expected to agree targets to halt the destruction of the natural world. But world leaders are not expected to attend the once-in-a-decade meeting where the next 10 years of targets will be agreed.

Who pulls the strings of the shady groups in Tufton Street?

For years sections of the media have worked to expose 55 Tufton Street and its outsized and malign hold over the Government via the opaque lobby groups and right-wing think tanks like the so-called Global Warming Policy Foundation, the Liz Truss linked Institute for Economic Affairs and ‘anti-woke’ groups like Restore Trust. 
Now Good Law Project has embarked on a series of legal interventions focused on Tufton Street cronyism: undisclosed donors, misinformation, astro-turfing, opacity and lobbying.
Restore Trust  – far from restoring trust – is one of many organisations which needs scrutiny. It recently tried – and failed – to seize control of  the National Trust, to stop it exploring debates on issues like slavery and LGBTQ+ inclusivity. Although Restore Trust claims to be grassroots it  won’t say who funds it, or even who it is. It has many of the hallmarks of an astro-turfed – a fake grassroots – organisation whose function is to mask the real actors who have a vested and often financial interest in the message they sell.