-
I don't really know how to argue against it
With data that disputes it? Lots good stuff out there; especially: http://rachelaldred.org/research/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-evidence/
The people who are hard anti cant be argued with and should not be wasted energy upon IMO. Its the people on fence about them.
-
people from neighbouring streets tend to complain that it results in more traffic going through their area
If the council adopts LTN as policy for the whole borough or city then you don’t have this problem. This sounds hard, but it might turn out to be easier to slip this into a policy document or election manifesto than it is to sell a particular scheme.
In terms of roads that won’t be filtered, the main idea is that these are roads that are chokka anyway. Traffic can’t increase because there’s no capacity. That’s what gets you your reduction in driving.
We have a couple of local groups campaigning for modals but people from neighbouring streets tend to complain that it results in more traffic going through their area and I don't really know how to argue against it without saying that the idea is that fewer people drive, with the implication them that they shouldn't drive, which never flies because they want to drive.
I kind of see the logic but I feel like it ends up being a kind of nimbyism? No cars on my street thank you and if you don't want cars on your street then make your own citizen group and lobby for your own modal. It doesn't help that obviously as it stands the people who end up lobbying for this kind of thing are the type who are settled and can afford to not use cars much (include myself here).
Then again I might just be depressed. We had quite a well thought through (I thought) bus gate scheme just get outvoted and removed at a council meeting (Cambridge mill road bus gate) which has kind of made me quite cynical of the possibility to improve streets from the ground up via the democratic process.