Thread by @BBvoice4all

https://twitter.com/GlobalNet21/status/1326809992368959494?s=20

It took less than 5 minutes for the erroneous “35% of car journeys in London are under 2km” stat to surface. It’s a mistake (or a deliberate distortion) of data in this document – the true figure is just over one-fifth. (1/13)
content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note…

That data should be used alongside this, which confirms that a significant proportion of short journeys cannot be realistically travelled by other means. So really we’re talking about something in the region of one in ten that could “mode shift.”. (2/13)
content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note…

This figure is in line with claims for possible traffic evaporation. Constant referrals to far higher figures are seriously misleading; whether deliberate or remiss it raises serious questions about the credibility of those responsible. (3/13)

Taking a verygenerous figure, 85% of traffic will be displaced onto other roads. In #BowesLTN these are *residential* main roads, principally the A406, at the heart of the 6th most congested stretch of road in the UK. (4/14)

Housing stock on these roads is being increased at a rapid rate so numbers adversely affected will continue to grow. And there are side roads affected too. (5/14)

@subversivite ’s “urban myth” response to this was akin to “let them eat cake”.
For anyone interested in evidence, have a look at this (6/13)

https://twitter.com/NormanC28839418/status/1326985715859775494?s=20

The rest either missed the point or avoided it (no answer to where B/low traffic will go in Phase 2). The key point, not addressed, is what justification there can be for adding to pollution and congestion on the roads already worst affected? (7/13)

Especially given (a) Bowes primary and proximity of other schools to the A406 & other impacted main roads (b) relative social advantage & car ownership between residents of these roads & those benefitting (c) impact on those who have to walk/cycle/wait on those streets (8/13)

The consultation does not offer any means of raising concerns about socially regressive displacement, despite the assertions about its ‘detail’. Overall this issue is yet to be acknowledged, and there does not seem to be any means for it to be addressed. (9/13)

It’s somewhat surprising that @jezzorhc hasn’t seen the communication between @Enfield Council and the Emergency Services.
It’s here: (10/13) whatdotheyknow.com/request/low_tr…

It was even more surprising to hear interviewees contest #BowesLTN was rushed. No-one understands the design and its rationale is unexplained. It's not the version on the BS4E website nor the one PG Community either. If not rushed, why is this? Surely it’s a concern. (11/13)

This is critical to the issue of alternative designs – it’s unrealistic to expect others to share or trust the confidence of campaign groups with close links to key councillors when so little information has been made available, and assurances are so vague. (12/13)

“From what we understand … “ is often heard from those connected to BS4E. It comes across as knowing, presumably intentional. If there is additional knowledge, oblique references are of no use. It will only reassure if it comes direct from the Council. (13/13)