Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
boundsandbowesvoice Profile picture
boundsandbowesvoice
@BBvoice4all
Bounds and Bowes Voice are a campaign group against the unjust & counter productive Enfield LTN for Bounds Green and Bowes. Gofundme: https://t.co/wvOHxBJr5V
Dec 12, 2024 • 11 tweets • 4 min read
Behind the cherry picked averages, the truth is that using Haringey's stated aims, and their own data, Bounds Green LTN has failed badly:
- ⬇️Cycling down
- ⬆️Air pollution up
- ⬆️Serious collisions and casualties up
- ⬆️Boundary Road traffic increase well above 'minimal' 🧵 The evidence:
NB: all direct from the council’s own data (that they have misrepresented and ignored in making the LTN permanent).
1. Cycling has gone down both within and outside the LTN – and this has happened despite dockless bikes dramatically increasing access to cycling. Image
Aug 23, 2023 • 15 tweets • 6 min read
The latest 'monitoring' of boundary road impact of Bowes LTN is a case study in the suspect use of data employed in order to justify LTNs.
The fact that it's been deemed sufficient to 'conclude' the monitoring defies belief - here's why: 🧵 Bowes LTN has 3 boundary roads as shown in Enfield’s monitoring plan below.
The North & West boundary = the A406, the East = A105 Green Lanes, the South = A109 Bounds Green Road.
Yet *2* of these are conveniently completely absent from the final monitoring report: (2) Enfield Monitoring Plan for Bowes LTN
Jul 6, 2023 • 17 tweets • 7 min read
The Interim report for Haringey Bounds Green LTN has been published – and whilst we’re used to the spin, this could be the most shocking example yet.
The overwhelming evidence shows the LTN is failing badly, and yet the report brazenly tries to pretend otherwise. 🧵(1) First of all boundary roads - the key point here, as always, is that these are already the most congested, polluted roads, with most schools, high occupancy dwellings, public transport access, most collisions and they're being made worse. (2)

Apr 18, 2023 • 6 tweets • 3 min read
A further issue re: @BBCPanorama - the use of WF survey data to claim LTNs work and gain support of time is a favourite of advocates, but it's doesn't stand up to basic fact checking.
The claim is as in the video and it's based on the report here: (1)
enjoywalthamforest.co.uk/wp-content/upl… As Cllr Loake knows the mini-Holland scheme involved far more measures than LTNs do, so it's a false comparison, as residents were being asked about a range of measures.
Worse, it's a false representation of responses - note the wording of the q below (boxed in red). (2) Image
Apr 17, 2023 • 8 tweets • 3 min read
The description below is a fairly accurate portrayal of @BBCPanorma tonight & highlights its inexcusable lack of balance.
@BBCJustinR - Why no mention of the social justice concerns?
There are many associated with @SocEnvJustice who would have been eager to make the case. (1) Image The programme starts with the familiar mischaracterisation of opposition as prioritising driving freedom over tackling congestion & pollution and then gives a disproportionate amount of air time to voices from the right that do not represent the true nature of much opposition.(2)
Jan 19, 2023 • 17 tweets • 6 min read
A thread on the latest research into LTNs – widely promoted but narrowly interpreted by LTN advocates – here’s an alternative take on what it shows.
Let’s start the data itself rather than the averages.
The following all appear in the research – what can they tell us? ImageImageImageImage A lot of roads see increased traffic post LTNs, especially boundaries, but a fair number of internals too. By relying on overall averages across all of the LTNs covered, this is easily missed. At the very least it suggests that lots of LTNs may not be working: Image
Aug 3, 2022 • 7 tweets • 4 min read
We too have respect for @GeorgeMonbiot & share Rosamund's disappointment with his piece today. The presentation of questionable evidence as indisputable fact is highly concerning and we'd urge further consideration of the following specific examples: (1/7) Firstly, @LittleNinjaUK 's point relating to 'Equity' (see linked thread) is especially important. As the graph suggests, the "2.7 more likely" figure used in today's article should not be allowed to mask or deny the genuine basis for serious concern.(2/7)
Mar 6, 2022 • 18 tweets • 5 min read
Grenoble Gardens and Bowes LTN – A thread
Discussion of the negative impact of Bowes LTN focuses significantly on the plight of Grenoble Gardens – there’s a huge amount of conjecture, alongside plenty of deliberate misinformation – it’s time to put the record straight. 2. No-one denies problems on Grenoble Gdns predate the LTN. Evidence of their history is frequently posted, typically with the intention of evading the key question: has Bowes LTN has made them worse? It's a question that many campaigners and politicians remain keen to avoid.
Nov 12, 2020 • 13 tweets • 4 min read

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…