The evidence they presented was an ambulance driver who had to go around a modal filter via side-streets to get to a patient who later died. We do not know if the patient died because of the LTN. I am aware of a case where Ealing council failed to delivery keys to an ambulance service - perhaps this was that? That error has now been rectified.

Needless to say, this is a tragedy. However, patients also die because emergency services get stuck in gridlock traffic. What needs to be show is that LTNs in general increase response times; but we were not presented with any data to support this. On the other side, there are examples of ambulances moving rapidly through LTNs, since they do not have to share the space with any other traffic. Remember, London's congestion is so bad that we have an air ambulance service. What we really need is data, and the limited amount we have so far is generally positive towards LTNs. One example we can look to is The Randstad, which is a huge urban area containing many connected LTNs, built from the 70s onwards. It doesn't seem to have problems with emergency service response times.

There's also the risk of missing the forest for the trees here. How many premature deaths occur from diseases of inactivity, toxic levels of air pollution and road accidents? Childhood obesity is around 20% in the UK and even higher in inner London boroughs. If you look at old photos of London, a striking difference to now is children playing safely on residential streets. Ambulance response times are not the only metric we need to keep an eye on.

The hosts like to make sweeping generalizations and talk about the "law of unintended consequences", but I wonder if they understand the law of induced demand?

For what it's worth, your risk from diseases of inactivity (diabetes, heart disease, etc) are far greater than the risk of cycling, even with poor infrastructure. Most people who take up cycling to work see an increase in life expectancy.

The solution is to separate cyclists from motor traffic on all major roads and introduce 30kmph limits on quiet roads. The Netherlands did this and has far lower accident rates, despite having more children and elderly people cycling. They don't wear helmets either!

* It tends to be busy with pedestrians (not everywhere, as you mention)

* It's not safe when crossing side-roads

* It's inefficient if you walk at junctions

Cities are usually quite small in area. USA is an exception to this but that is due to car dependency. We can't reverse care dependency if we continue to pander to it. In London, the average speed of traffic is much lower than a gentle cycle. For longer distances, municipalities should focus on rail infrastructure. You might also consider an e-bike, which can double or triple your range as a cyclist.

> You have facilities to shower and dress at work

Cycling at a moderate pace does not make you any sweatier than public transport . With adequate infrastructure, cycling in a city can be leisurely, rather than a battle against motor traffic. Riding a bike is not the same as racing a bike, much like how walking is not the same as running.

> You have sufficient time to shower and dress at work

Presumably you have to shower somewhere. What difference does it make if it is before or after your commute?

> You don't have to bring kids or sizable cargo

Cargo bikes are remarkably efficient and can carry two small children. They are cheaper than a car too. Older children can cycle. Did you know 75% of dutch teenagers cycle to school? However, we need infrastructure where people feel safe to do this. For occasional journeys a car may still be required, but that's fine, we are targeting the 90% case here.

> Weather is sufficiently good

Cycling away from traffic in the rain with fenders and a jacket is no worse than walking. Toughen up?

> You're sufficiently healthy

In The Netherlands, disabled and elderly people can use powered scooters and wheel chairs on the cycle paths. This gives them independence even after losing their driving license. In other countries, they would likely end up in a home. For those who must use a car, that is still an option. Traffic is actually reduced since cycle lanes have much greater carrying capacity in terms of _people_.

Source?

I'm guessing you are talking about LTNs (Low Traffic Neighbourhoods). For those outside the UK, these are schemes where through motor traffic is prevented from using residential roads. The idea has been around for decades, but they have seen a recent government push due to people switching away from public transport due to COVID. They are usually implemented by strategically placing modal filters (bollards, gates, enforcement cameras, etc). Emergency services are given keys to the gates and bollards. Walkers and cyclists can travel through unimpeded.

In a public Q&A, London Ambulance Service said they had no evidence of delays due to new LTNs. In fact, they are generally supportive of the schemes. By law, councils must consult with emergency services before implementation.

They have also been the subject of disinformation campaigns by right wing newspapers and taxi driver unions.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26728216

Points: 559

# Comments: 753

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26728195

Points: 1

# Comments: 0