Traffic data in its various forms is, of course, absolutely central to the LTN debate and the monitoring, analysing and reporting of traffic data has been the source of much misunderstanding and flawed policy decisions.  This section of the website aims to present the facts as we undertsand them and is a work in progress to be updated as new data becomes available.
​
DfT Traffic Data
The whole LTN project was based on a terrible mistake.  In 2023 DfT revealed that its monitoring of traffic volumes on minor roads in the UK had been seriously flawed and instead of rising for the previous 10 years had been more or less flatlining.  In Islington, it turned out that traffic volumes had been falling steadily up to 2020 and Covid when they fell substantially - see here.  Tragically, it was at this point that Islington Council started its misguided LTN policy.

​

​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
The Boundary Road Dispute
​As each LTN in Islington has been rolled out, the Council has published a series of reports attempting to prove that the projects have been a success.  All of these reports have been misleading and in some cases downright dishonest as we have reported on frequently and at length - see here.  A common theme is that, according to the Council, whilst traffic volumes within LTNs have fallen substantially (obviously!) this traffic has not been diverted on to surrounding roads but has mysteriously "evaporated".  The key reports upon which this false claim was based are by:

1. Prof Rachel Aldred and her team at the Active Travel Academy of the University of Westminster, based on some 46 LTNs in Islington and other boroughs (2024).  This reported that traffic on boundary roads had increased by an average of just 1.3%.  See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213624X23001785

2. A related team at Imperial College using traffic data supplied by Islington Council (2022).  This reported that traffic on boundary roads had decreased by an average of 13%.  See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920922003625    

The main reasons why these findings are highly misleading are as follows:

• ​Perhaps most importantly, it is quite obvious to those actually living or travelling on these boundary roads that congestion on these roads is worse than it was before neighbouring LTNs were put in place, in some places seriously so.  The lived experience of people affected by these changes must always take precedence over statistics, especially when those statistics are produced and published by organisations with a case to prove.  So for example, congestion on Holloway Rd has become steadily worse as LTNs took effect in Highbury, Canonbury and St Marys and traffic there is now routinely gridlocked in both directions.  This congestion then has a knock-on effect so that there is now chronic congestion on all main roads fanning out from Highbury Corner, which is itself an example of a disastrous decision by the Council in conjunction with TfL to turn it from a roundabout into a massively complex and obstructive junction which is widely recognised to be not fit for purpose.

• It is now accepted that the methodology for recording traffic volumes, based on tubes laid across the street (ATC), just doesn't work for slowly moving traffic.  Without going into details, this methodology would result in a completely gridlocked road of stationary traffic appearing to be completely traffic free!  Rachel Aldred herself has now admitted that this is the case.

• The trick of presenting average figures is particularly deceptive.  Obviously, some boundary roads will be relatively unaffected and some may even have less traffic as TfL's congestion charges and ULEZ programmes take effect.  But on certain roads at certain spots congestion is extremely serious on a chronic basis and the important point is that it is these congestion hot spots which cause the most grief for motorists and for those unfortunate enough to live or work nearby.

• There are many other flaws to the traffic monitoring and reporting processes employed by the Council and its consultants such as the period of the day or time or year when monitoring takes place, what is being compared with what in before and after comparisons, and what aspect of traffic is being measured - numbers of vehicles per unit time, how long it takes for journeys to be completed, who or what the vehicles are carrying, and where vehicles are travelling from and to.  Traffic is a complex phenomenon!

• Finally, these studies do not take account of the cumulative effect which by which knock-on effects spread to main thoroughfares way beyond particular LTNs.  The lived experience in this case for anyone driving across most of North London is that journey times have increased to an intolerable level.  Apart from the hardship for residents who for perfectly legitimate reasons wish to travel from time to time outside there local areas the effect on all businesses and commerce in general must be devastating and will no doubt one day be seen to have been an extraordinarily irresponsible act of attrition against the economy of our capital city.

​

For a good discussion of how LTN traffic data can be misleading see this blog by John Stewart of SEJ: https://johnstewartliveblog.wordpress.com/2023/05/28/low-traffic-neighbourhood-data-unravelling 

​

​

​Response to FOI Request on Traffic Data in Barnsbury.Laycock, October 2024

KBM submitted a Freedom Of Information (FOI) Request to the Council asking for details of any other traffic data surveys relating to Barnsbury.Laycock.  We received a substantial volume of data in response, comprising:​

• Data collected in 2021 on traffic volumes per 24 hour period (measured using the flawed ATC technology) for many selected streets within the core Barnsbury.Laycock area and also key surrounding boundary roads.

• 26 page report from SMART consultants, on origin-destination traffic volumes per 24 hour period in 2023 (measured using ANPR technology)), centered around Liverpool Rd

• Data collected in 2024 on traffic volumes per 24 hour period (measured using ANPR technolgy), again,  for many selected streets within the core Barnsbury.Laycock area and also key surrounding boundary roads.

​​

Our main reaction is that, whilst the Council has clearly gathered a huge amount of raw traffic data, the way it has been presented, to us at least, makes any analysis very difficult and does not inspire confidence in the validity of any broad conclusions which the Council may make.  Moreover the robustness of the data gathering methodologies used by the consultants is questionable, especially the reliance on data sets for single 24 hour periods for each street studied.

​

Having said this, a high level inspection of the data does tend to confirm what we already know from lived experience of the traffic in Barnsbury.Laycock, specifically:

• Traffic volumes in most major streets within the core area tend to be about 3000 vehicles per 24 hour period - in other words about 2 cars per minute on average, which to our thinking, simply cannot be described as being in any sense "busy" or oppressive.  

• Traffic volumes in streets which the Council has identified as "cut-throughs" or "rat runs", and will be filtered if the Council's current proposals go ahead, tend not to be much different than volumes for other streets of a comparable size.  For example volumes in Mackenzie Rd are actually higher than those for Offord Rd.  This is significant because under the proposals much of the East-West traffic which would no longer be allowed to pass along Offord Rd can be expected to be diverted on to Mackenzie Rd.

• Not surprisingly, traffic volumes on Liverpool Rd are quite a lot higher than those on other core streets at about 10,000 per 24 hours.  

• Traffic volumes on all the main boundary roads surrounding the core area are much higher, typically more than 25,000 per 24 hour period, and, crucially, have increased by about 3,000 over the 3 year period since 2021 when LTNs started to take effect.  In other words, this is quite strong evidence that our lived experience impression that LTNs have increased congestion on these thoroughfares is indeed valid!

​

​
​