https://findingspress.org/article/18198-the-impact-of-introducing-a-low-traffic-neighbourhood-on-fire-service-emergency-response-times-in-waltham-forest-london

Low-traffic schemes halve number of road injuries, study shows
Research on police data for London neighbourhoods finds greatest reduction in injury rates among pedestrians and people in cars
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jul/23/low-traffic-schemes-halve-number-of-road-injuries-study-shows

Hi Mark,

I see where you are coming from now. If you believe these are not generalisable then yes evidence relating to similar schemes would be less relevant and it would make much more sense to require additional study, but I think you are wrong on this.

Implementing “point closures” are part of DfT’s recommended toolkit for making streets safer. It wouldn’t make any sense for them to do that, or for PHE & NICE to recommend it unless the approach was effective in a wide range of circumstances.

Clearly some places are more suitable than others but that’s no different to other traffic management like traffic lights, yellow lines, road widening or lane markings.

If you think one or more of these are in the wrong place then please do suggest where you think the right places are and we can take a look those just as we have the five bridges. If there is something that works better we would genuinely welcome that.

There were 10,000 comments on the Council’s website so they will have a good view of what people think are the positives and negatives of the closures and can use that in their decision making. We have assessed some of the concerns in previous blogs. Also if you search on ‘election’ on this website you will see we have long asked the Council to improve their engagement so people are more aware of the issues that these changes are trying to address.
 
The blog hasn’t been updated since first published so I’m not sure what you mean by ‘adjusted your post’ unless you are referring to Lucy’s comment, but that was her words and wasn’t ever in our post to start with.

Hi Lucy,

Cycle to Work schemes and Bikeability already do most of what you are suggesting, and the Council has previously run cycle training for adults, and I presume will do so again in future, but these aren’t sufficient in themselves to make much of a difference to cycling levels. If they were then many more people would already be cycling.

On Ilford Road / Stoneyhurst Road I agree more can be done to make those safer, but Stoneyhurst Road bridge has already helped reduced traffic on both, which will help considerably. There are also lots of flats west of the bridge btw.

I also agree about the Terraces being relatively narrow, although no narrower as a result of this change than before. We mentioned mitigations to help vehicles pass in our response so hopefully the Council will look at this. Stopping cars parking on street corners so bigger vehicles can turn would go a long way to help.

Overall though, we each need to make a decision about whether we support the status quo or want to do something about it to make streets more accessible and safer for kids and older people, to improve choice for how people travel, reduce pollution etc. If you think there are better ways with evidence to support their effectiveness please do let us know.

The reason we don’t need Newcastle specific vaccination information or building codes is because the evidence from trials or studies of these things is generalisable. The same cannot be assumed for point closures – why close these specific points and not others – would closure at other points be more effective and less disadvantageous? Some of the bridge closure may achieve the desired aims but others may not. Hence the need for proper, transparent evaluation.To extend your analogy in relation to vaccination, it is like saying that because the Pfizer vaccine works, the AstraZeneca one must also work, so there’s no need to study it. Your arguments are therefore flawed when you assert that there is evidence that traffic is reduced and there is value for money because a similar scheme elsewhere achieved the same. Also, remember vaccine trials also study adverse reactions, and if a vaccine showed evidence of efficacy but had an unacceptable adverse effect profile, it would not be approved for use. Your blog makes little mention of unintended harm. Sometimes the status quo *is* better than a change!

I am a keen runner and cyclist. I have self-powered my commute for over three years. I am as hopeful as anyone else of reducing the amount of motor traffic on the road. I recognise the benefit of point closures, but they need to be in the right places and, most importantly, they need to take the local community with them – this requires proper, transparent consultation, not use of emergency legislation. These were meant to be trial closures – that means that evaluation is necessary – otherwise they would just be closures.

My plea is really that you don’t produce pseudoscientific reasons to support your viewpoint – it does both you and your argument a disservice. And I agree with Emma’s point above – and also note that you have adjusted your post to remove what was a rather crass assertion

When the Council install new traffic lights in Newcastle no one demands specific proof that they work at the junction in question, no one asks for Newcastle-specific vaccine trials, we don’t do Newcastle-specific tests for building codes. These, like the “point closures”, have already been proved in practice so we don’t need to go to the effort of repeating basic tests over and over, which is what I think you are suggesting.

That said, I would be absolutely delighted if someone would undertake an academic study on these changes much like those we have referenced from other areas where similar changes have been successful. It would be great to have well-evidenced local case studies.

What we have shared in our blog are our reasons for supporting the closure, which includes evidence that the approach taken by the Council is supported and recommended by respectable organisations like NICE and PHE. I realise that’s different to evidence of specific local benefit, but I think most people would still consider it relevant.

You hold a viewpoint which you support with assertions which you cannot substantiate. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, but please don’t tell me that you have firm evidence of benefit without having a way of measuring that benefit. Evidence is tangible and concrete, not a feeling that things might be better. Evidence may not be without flaws, but it certainly provides a better basis for change than anecdote. You should be arguing for its collection to support your position, or perhaps you are concerned that it might prove the opposite?

Hi Mark,

Thanks for your suggestions for evidence, all of which are very sensible. Certainly it would be good if the government / local authorities did consider this sort of approach for traffic schemes, especially starting with the £100m+ changes that we see on major roads where actual evidence of effectiveness is less certain. Whether the government would consider it worth doing for these much cheaper minor road schemes is less sure, as they might consider it disproportionate, and delaying action on road safety especially and climate change also have consequences.

Obviously as a community group collecting that evidence isn’t something we could do but we can summarise what evidence is available. Your assertion that your list is the only evidence that should be considered seems strange though, and I don’t agree that e.g. guidance from PHE or NICE are no more than ‘opinion or anecdote’.

The way road design generally works is based on implementing standard approaches. So, for example, the Council doesn’t put CCTV up to measure how many people park on a new yellow line every time they put in a new one. Rather the Council relies on the fact that yellow lines have been tested before and found to be sufficiently effective.

The approach using “point closures” is exactly the same principle. The approach is tested and proven as per the evidence and recommendations we shared. Government Statutory Guidance that the Council is implementing mentioned these as one of the standard approaches that should be taken along with e.g. wider pavements, protected cycle lanes and school streets.

Your point on surveying public opinion is well made. We have shared some concerns with local Councillors about their questionnaire, and CommonPlace by its nature allows drivers cutting through these minor roads to easily outnumber residents who would benefit from quieter streets. Decision makers should be aware of these limitations of course when they decide on the future of these schemes.

Data in relation to air quality before closure and after closure in the specific location of the closure (and over long enough periods to take into account seasonal variation and the effect of COVID)

Data in relation to traffic levels on parallel routes before closure and after closure in the specific location of the closure (and over long enough periods to take into account seasonal variation and the effect of COVID)

Data in relation to local cycle use (not intent, but actual use) before closure and after closure in the specific location of the closure (and over long enough periods to take into account seasonal variation and the effect of COVID)

Data in relation to objective measures of safety (not anecdotal or feeling safe) before closure and after closure in the specific location of the closure (and over long enough periods to take into account seasonal variation and The effect of COVID)

These are objective measures – virtually everything proposed in this article is opinion or anecdote masquerading as evidence. Evidence from other areas of the country provides the rationale for a trial closure but the actual effect must be measured on site before making anything permanent if you are to say there is evidence to support closure.

Ideally those agreeing the metrics should be in equipoise and not have a vested or ideological interest.

When surveying public opinion, this should be done systematically so that a representative sample of the local population is provided – not Uncle Tom Cobbley and all who will not be directly affected by the closure.