LTNs - positive analysis in the Grauniad

The report (https://www.centreforlondon.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/CFL-StreetShift-LTNs-Final.pdf) gets the 172% figure from traffic counts from https://enjoywalthamforest.co.uk/work-in-your-area/ltns/

It doesn't look to me as though the Gradnuia is mis-representing the report at all.

That still only gives percentages, though. We don't know whether that 172% increase is from 1000 trips to 2720, or from 18 trips to 49 (which could be much more affected by statistical variability).

mdavidford wrote:

That still only gives percentages, though. We don't know whether that 172% increase is from 1000 trips to 2720, or from 18 trips to 49 (which could be much more affected by statistical variability).

I'd expect the raw figures should be available from the council

I'm not saying the Guardian are misrepresenting anything, simply they havent questioned the source data, just repeated a reports findings, likely because the report is favourable & that fits with their editorial outlook on LTNs, just like the Telegraph simply repeats claims from anti LTN groups without questioning them because it fits with their editorial outlook currently.

But if you cant back this report up with hard measured numbers, and yes I followed the link to Waltham Foret site because I can read appendices & references for myself, but theres nothing there that says what any of those numbers in that presentation slide are based on other than it involved community engagement and a range of monitoring, which doesnt explain what that monitoring is or what the actual numbers were.

Call me picky if you like but when someone publishes a report using data to support their claims, I like to see the real data that led them to that conclusion. I wont simply accept something must be the case because it favourably shows something im in favour of in a positive light.

Correlation is not causation, statistics can be very misleading sometimes, always question when people use numbers to back their claims and demand to see their real data for analysis.

On page 41 of the report, where the 172% figure comes from, it clearly states "Traffic counts" (although that's listed under the "assessment period" heading which appears wrong). In contrast, the Enfield study was produced from longitudinal resident surveys.

You did imply strongly that the Garudnia was misrepresenting when you stated "I dont think the think tank report is half as positive about LTNs as the Guardian claims". However, I do agree that they (Graduian journalists) don't do in depth fact checking as that doesn't seem to be a major factor in modern journalism, but I'm not aware of instances where they just make stuff up like certain other news organisations.

I think your issue is more with the Centre for London Think-tank than the Gnarduia

I'm not sure I'd agree that deliveries are a minor component.  Without numbers it's speculation as you say.  Plus they are completely different travel patterns.  That would be comparing companies doing lots of deliveries on a route (and aside from shopping we're probably getting lots of deliveries of one or two items via multiple couriers) vs. lots of people individually travelling - probably going to a "location" - eg. town centre - and collecting multiple things.  But that might well be part of a multi-purpose trip or one they would do anyway e.g. after work / a school run.

The paywall thing is interesting.

On the one hand, I'm aware that the news I read is not completely representative (online tabloids and the Graudian); but on the other, all of the right-leaning 'serious' newspapers (Times, Torygraph, FT) are paywalled.  And I'm definitely not paying to buy the treeware copy of any of them...

I don't usually bother trying to bypass paywalls, but it's easy enough to get to their article. It's got an interesting bit about how Copenhagen initially had LTN issues back in the 80s

https://www.ft.com/content/2a1c7d1f-d012-4679-b413-f9a19a110471