Rockets

Otto2 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Legal alien - no. She is stating there is no > national school travel data available. The article > itself is focused on the idea that streets ought > to be easily navigated by everyone in all modes > including walking and cycling. > > Rockets - > > I think the LTN's are a first measure. Segregated > cycle lanes need to be added to address parts of > the population that have previously not been > catered to - women and children and less confident > cyclists. With no thru traffic on many roads > bordering Ed Grove, the addition of segregated > cycle lanes is a real possibility and one that > would help groups that have not been catered to > with cycle infrastructure - mums and kids and > those needing to travel east west rather than into > the city centre. For walking, many of the LTN's > are a real plus to small people who need to cross > streets safely. > > Cars and vehicles will certainly be part of the > mix, but, it would be great if kids could walk and > cycle to school with confidence. And, as far as > pollution and climate change and population > growth, we need to stop using cars as much. > Eliminating just one trip a day does have an > impact. > > I think the focus is on both walking and cycling > from what I have read. > > I have to cut out here as I have a busy work day > to finish -- I can't dedicate the amount of time > to this as I would like. Otto2 - I agree completely. We do need more segregated cycle lanes but groups like LCC, who have the ear of the council and TFL, and seem to have the strongest voice and influence in this debate, don't agree that such things go far enough - they want to see the removal of motor vehicles from many roads (see below where they state - fully eliminate through motor traffic from the residential and other non-distributor roads). Lots of kids and people in Dulwich were walking to school and walking in Dulwich before the LTNs (68% to be precise) so what purpose did the LTNs actually serve? All they have done is made other streets in the area less attractive to walk and cycle along - and it was obvious from day 1 that that was going to be the only outcome from closing the LTN roads. LCC's response to the OHS Consultation the council invited them to respond to: There is a risk that this scheme does not, as currently designed, fully eliminate through motor traffic from the residential and other non-distributor roads in the area. Further consideration should be given to any remaining through routes, potentially including Dulwich Park in area B, as well as what happens outside operating hours on Townley Road. Areas A and C should as much as possible see strong reductions in through motor traffic throughout also. - The further proposed restrictions in this context are also supported ? particularly restricting private, through motor traffic on Dulwich Village itself.

Metallic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Have you seen the new leaflet from Dulwich > alliance? It is on their Facebook page and is > worth a look. Southwark not releasing any > information so at least there is some on there. > > Personally a bit fed up of not knowing anything > other than what we pick up from that sort of > Facebook post, or from twitter. Where are all the > councillors and why are they not telling us > everything rather than just selective bits and > pieces? Metallic, is this the one where they are saying they have recorded NO2 levels 3 times higher on roads like Lordship Lane and Croxted Road than on the roads within the LTNs like Calton and that the levels on Lordship Lane etc are now massively exceeding WHO guidelines since the LTNs went in? Have DA been monitoring the pollution levels in lieu of the council doing it?

Otto2 - it is an interesting article and, perhaps not surprisingly, it seems over-weighting towards cycling. I found this part very interesting: "Over the last 20 years cycle use in the UK has hovered at less than 2% of all trips. We must start building for pedestrian and cycle traffic and cutting motor traffic at a pace and scale not yet seen. In London cycling mode share was 1.2% in 2000 rising to 2.4% in 2019. If cycling levels continue to rise at that rate, it will take over 500 years to reach the levels of cycling now seen in cities such as Amsterdam (where cycling mode share is 36%)." Maybe the big issue here is that London isn't anything like Amsterdam and will never be anything like Amsterdam - so why are we so obsessed with trying to compare ourselves to them? We seem to spend a huge amount of money trying to cut and paste schemes that have worked in other countries and apply them here. What we actually need is a programme of measures that acknowledges the challenges of London as a mega-city and that start from a position that cars and vehicles will always need to be part of the mix, rather than trying to eliminate them. Walking is, by far, the most popular mode of active travel in London, and perhaps more importantly Dulwich, so why are the council over-indexing so much on cycling? Are we just trying to rob Peter to pay Paul? I wish I saw as much gusto and enthusiasm for measures to encourage walking from the council as I see for cycling. Could it be, perhaps, that the cycle lobby groups have hijacked the agenda to try and make this all about cycling so they can secure more of the cash (that is, after all, part of LCC's mission statement)? And I know some will say but LCC is a charity - indeed it is but it is primarily a lobby group, and a very powerful one with that, to further the interests of cycling and cycling only. There is a lot of money at stake - the govt has promised ?2bn of funding for active travel and it looks like the cycle lobby are trying to seize the initiative to get the biggest slice. Given the amount of money already invested in cycling infrastructure in London if in 19 years it has only grown from 1.2% to 2.4% as the article Otto2 shared you have to start asking the question whether that has been money well spent and whether you will ever get it above, say, 5%. Maybe it's time to acknowledge that cycling is never going to be the dominant form of active travel in London (due to the size and geography of the city) and to focus attention on other modes like walking.

It's interesting to read some of the commentary in the London Cycling Campaign's consultation response to Southwark's Phase 3 request - timing is very interesting as it was submitted 4 days after the first big lockdown of 2020 started. https://s3.amazonaws.com/lcc_production_bucket/files/13605/original.pdf?1585322217 Firstly that they didn't think Southwark were going far enough: There is a risk that this scheme does not, as currently designed, fully eliminate through motor traffic from the residential and other non-distributor roads in the area. Further consideration should be given to any remaining through routes, potentially including Dulwich Park in area B, as well as what happens outside operating hours on Townley Road. Areas A and C should as much as possible see strong reductions in through motor traffic throughout also. - The further proposed restrictions in this context are also supported ? particularly restricting private, through motor traffic on Dulwich Village itself. And secondly, that they seemed to want to treat Dulwich as some sort of experiment - an LTN petri-dish almost so that future implementations could mitigate any adverse impacts of the schemes.... For this reason, monitoring, both before and after implementation, of air quality, motor traffic volumes and speeds, cycling and walking volumes and potentially even footfall and retail vacancy rates of nearby shops on nearby main roads and residential streets this scheme could impact, would be desirable, up to several years after the introduction of the scheme, sporadically. This would enable the borough and other London, and UK, transport bodies, councillors and officers etc. to build up a valuable evidence base on the results of introducing LTNs, and enable the borough to build schemes to mitigate any adverse impacts as well as reassure residents and shopkeepers of the benefits medium and long-term.

Legal agree - the councils fail to plan between themselves at the councillor level or at the council-to-council level so there's no strategic thinking holding all of this together. Look at Dulwich, it was clear each councillor jumped on the LTN bandwagon to try and force closures in under covid and gave zero consideration to the impact further down the road (in fact Cllr McAsh used the mooted DV closure as a way to lobby residents to get Melbourne Grove closed instead of challenging the DV councillors about the impact on the Goose Green residents). Abe is right - a journey to the M4 is now a good 15 minutes longer (25% increase) than it used to be because along every route councils have dropped local LTNs that are displacing traffic onto the only routes around London. As much as the focus has been on local implementations it is clear no-one has been giving any thought to the impact on London's ability to keep functioning or whether the collective mass of these interventions is actually making the very problem (pollution) they are trying to solve a lot worse. And given councils are refusing to monitor pollution I think we can probably understand why now.

Legal - I am presuming the council will have some of that data as now the monitoring strips have gone in (I believe) they can tell how fast the traffic is moving on any road and whether it is free-flowing or crawling along. It will be very interesting to see what data they present during the review but my concern is that they are going to be very binary on this: i.e. "we reduced traffic within the LTN areas therefore this has been a success" rather than "whilst traffic reduced in areas within the LTN the impact on boundary roads and other roads outside the LTN was negative". I also fear they have begun preparing to try to sell the middle ground narrative of "we reduced traffic within the LTN areas and traffic shifted to boundary roads....which are designed for more traffic".

It does seem that the council became laser focussed on bike travel and looking at those PCT numbers we had both the highest levels of cycle commuters and school cycle travel in London back in 2011 so it begs the question again - why the need for such drastic intervention? I do wonder whether all the council is achieving is turning more of the 68% of active travel in Dulwich from walking to cycling - they have certainly been over-indexing on it. I very much suspect a lot of the 65% of walking active travel in 2018 was to and from Lordship Lane yet the council's focus was on placating the cycle lobby and closing off Dulwich Village. They could, and should, have been doing much more to focus on Lordship Lane and making it more attractive to people to walk to and from but by pandering to those calling for DV to be closed they have made Lordship Lane a more polluted and less attractive place to visit. It's clear the council have let the cycle lobby dictate the strategy and implementation - think back to all the OHS meetings (that have since come to light as people have dug into the minutes of the meetings) where only the cycle lobby, and those with links to the cycle lobby, were invited to present or the Peckham Rye LTN proposal where they ignored the input of the emergency services yet bowed to the input of Southwark Cyclists. If this all backfires on the council, and they have to remove the closures/make changes, I do hope there is some sort of enquiry into how we got here, who was responsible for the decisions made and councillors take responsibility for the mess they created and the money and time that was wasted.

DulwichCentral Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > @rockets > My goodness what an excellent conspiracy theory! > Another one to add to your list ;) It is a good one isn't it - I may have excelled myself with this one ;-) - probably completely wrong but there has to be some reason why Southwark chose Dulwich for these measures when we were top of the leader board for active travel in the borough - we were doing brilliantly without the need for further intervention - there could easily have been effort put into increasing the walking share - the irony that we had to wait months to get social distancing measures for pedestrians put in on Lordship Lane (remember how long it took the council to expand the pavements outside Moxons etc when Lambeth had done it months before) is not lost on me. Legal - I think you might be right. The cycle lobby saw Dulwich as fertile ground to build out their network. I would love to know at what point Southwark first had contact with the LCC and Southwark Cyclists and who initiated contact.

Here is a view I have been considering for some time and things like the "appear to spur increased local walking" seem to validate my suspicions. In Dulwich we already had a huge amount of active travel (more than any other part of the borough). The 2018 Dulwich Traffic report said that 68% of local journeys were either walking or cycling but only 3% of it was cycling - we are clearly very good at walking places around here. Could it be that the cycle lobby groups were concerned that only a small fraction of active travel journeys were on bikes and, given that they rely so much on government funding, that they had to find a way to try and increase that share else risk having their funding cut at source? I am sure the govt gives TFL targets to reach if they get funding and that will likely translate into % share of travel. Given the flatlining of cycling in central London over the last couple of years I wonder if they had to turn their attention to areas further out of London and so focussed on the OHS process. I have been wondering for a while whether the cycle lobby groups hijacked the process to try and force cycling onto the agenda and that their agenda is not so much active travel but active travel by bike. Given the seriously low % of active travel journeys by bike in an area with high active travel it is quite phenomenal how much time, effort and money Southwark is putting into trying to up the cycling share. Also remember that the cycle lobby groups were the first port of call for the council when they sought input on their Phase 1,2,3 and 4 plans (many of which got thrown out due to their ludicrousness) and seemed to have more influence over the plans than the emergency services (remember the bus gate on Peckham Rye idea). Many people have been asking why Dulwich, why this area when active travel was already very much established and why did the council go against their own recommendations about where to put LTNs? Could it be external influence, were the council in control of the process or were others?

heartblock Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Critical analysis of Rachel?s latest. > 1. Only Oyster card and cyclists polled > 2. Unrepresentative of the local population in > terms of age, gender and ethnicity (actually in > the published limitations of the study) > 3. Outcomes used ?walking? to prove that more > people were cycling > 4. Used people?s perceptions of traffic use, car > ownership and more active travel rather than > actual data > 5. Concluded that if residents within LTNs > ?reported? that they had less car ownership as a > result of an LTN, that traffic was ?evaporating? > across the area. > 6. Changes in pollution, actual traffic flow and > decreases/increases in traffic not measured on > non-LTN roads or LTNs roads. > > So I think the study is flawed myself, other > reviewers may think differently. > > Also most of the publications are open access and > not in peer reviewed journals, and are published > as ?findings? rather than research. Heartblock - what does it mean where you say "Outcomes used walking to prove that more people were cycling"?

Northern - I agree, where someone's great aunt lives has no impact on what they are doing - the fact that this was declared as a conflict of interest is a good thing as it shows that the people doing this research are aware that they have to declare such things. I do think, however, that there are many parts of this that are like the murky world of government lobbying - it's all very incestuous, inter-connected and ultimately self-serving. You hold a director position heading policy at a cycle lobby group that receives funding from DfT/TFL and a large number of the paid research projects you/your research group do are funded/commissioned by DfT/TFL so they can mould their transport policy. You then publish research that gets reported (exclusively) by the Guardian's cycling/environmental correspondents (and self-proclaimed cycling lobbyists) as proof that said cycle and roads policy is working. It's all a bit cyclical. Now it could be, of course, that all of these people are the only ones capable of doing such research and that their motives are good but you have to agree that the optics are not great.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > > TFL were cutting the data differently to show a > win. It's > > what organisations do when the data isn't > showing > > what they want it to show.. > > It's interesting. TFL are misrepresenting the > data. Academics are biased in their research. All > the evidence suggesting better cycling > infrastructure and quieter streets encourage > active travel is dubious. At last...we agree on something! Welcome to the dark side ;-) I would disagree with you though on cycling infrastructure and active travel. Better cycling infrastructure does encourage active travel....but only when applied strategically as part of an area-wide programme of measures. Done in isolation they are a waste of time and negatively impact more people than they positively impact.

Rahx3 - just re-read the thread. It's pretty clear: I hope this is the last time I have to explain it to you....after years of significant growth cycling in London reached its peak in 2016, growth plateaued in 2017 and 2018 and registered a decline in 2019. In 2020 the pandemic led to a significant increase in cycling but driven by outer London Cycling as people turned to cycling for exercise during the pandemic. And Heartblock do stay. We need as many people as possible to set the record straight on a few things that are presented a proof of success of the LTNs. I am glad we have finally established that Rachel Alfred's research is neither impartial or unbiased nor particularly scientific.

Rahx3 - but I am not - you can delude yourself all you want but since 2017, and before Covid, the trend has been flat/decline in London. The challenge for everyone is how do you maintain the the upward trend in cycling since Covid and turn those journeys around Dulwich Park into long-term sustainable change and you don't do it by having small areas of localised closures that create horrendous conditions in other part of the area that turn a majority of residents against the measures. We live in a mega-city and we need a joined up city-wide approach and there has been no sign that any council is doing anything other than dropping LTNs in areas where their local councillors want a vanity project to call their own - there is no strategy behind it - look at the shambolic execution we had in Dulwich. Until joined-up strategic thinking happens then LTNs are doomed to failure, and there is no sign, for example, that Lambeth talk to Southwark or Southwark talk to Bromley or Croydon on any of these issues.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Fair enough Heartblock. That?s very fair. > > @Rockets - but even by your own reckoning the > trend in cycling in London over many years has > been up. You can?t honestly say it?s falling. Can > you? I get the football analogy. You?re looking to > score points. But on the substance, do you really > contend that creating cycling infrastructure > doesn?t encourage cycling? As I said before, yes since 2008 cycling is up but the point I was making was that since 2017 and before Covid, the volume growth in cycling in London had plateau'd and, on occasions year on year (2019), declined. Of course, since Covid it has risen again (remember TFL makes the point themselves in their Covid impacted increase that this is being driven by cycling journeys in outer London) but many are asking if that growth is realistic as life returns to normality and people start returning to their offices - do those people cycling their kids around Dulwich park choose cycling to travel to their offices - that is the unknown? In central London lots of investment in new cycling infrastructure since 2017 did not lead to a significant increase in cycling and TFL's own data shows that. TFL has even acknowledged that and that's why they were so keen to analyse how they can get wider, and more diverse, groups into cycling as they feared they had reached saturation point with middle-aged middle-class white men (who dominated cycling in inner London as they commuted to work). Not looking to score points but if someone defends badly and presents me with an open goal I am going to take it! ;-)

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > > No, increased every year until 2017, then > plateau' > > d, declined in 2019 and then up again in 2020 > due > > to the pandemic (driven mainly by outer London > > cycling - i.e. people being at home and taking > to > > their bikes for exercise). > > It's actually increased every single year since > surveys began in 2013 / 14. > > there was a levelling off in 2017, but this was > followed by record increase in 2018. The trend > over time has been consistently up. TFL, in the > report you've quoted as evidence apparently that > cycling isn't growing in London, say: > > "In central London, the average quarterly growth > in cycled kilometres in 2018 with respect to 2017 > was 6.2 per cent, also the highest recorded since > surveys began in Q4 2013/14, but this should be > seen in the context of just 0.1 per cent growth > the previous year. The most recent data from > January-March and April-June 2019 continue to show > signs of sustained long-term growth." > > In 2020 there was again record growth, with a 22% > increase in outer London. Whichever way you cut > it, it's impossible to seriously argue that > cycling in London hasn't consistently trended > upwards over many years and continues to do so. Rahx3 - nope. It's not pointless it's basic data and information interpretation. Volume vs cycled kilometres - there's a difference. TFL were cutting the data differently to show a win. It's what organisations do when the data isn't showing what they want it to show......see Southwark council as reference! ;-) I will just leave this here from TFL's Travel for London Report 13 that was published in 2020. The 2019 calendar year saw a small year-on-year decline of 2.7 per cent in cycling volumes (mainly driven by trends in outer London, and reflecting unusually poor weather during the counting periods) I think with this and Heartblock's superb return to the fold on peer review that they volleyed into the top corner Rahrahrah might be 2-0 down on the evening! ;-) Rahx3 - that was said very much in the spirit of the evening's superb football result and my tongue firmly placed in my cheek - so please take it in the spirit in which it was intended!! ;-)

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So increased every year since 2015 except a small > dip during the lockdown. After which it increased > again this in 2020? No, increased every year until 2017, then plateau' d, declined in 2019 and then up again in 2020 due to the pandemic (driven mainly by outer London cycling - i.e. people being at home and taking to their bikes for exercise).

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > She has over 25 peer reviewed papers. They're not > 'awaiting peer review'. Almost every published > academic in this area gets accused of 'bias' in > this debate and it's nonsense. ...accusations of bias are very easy when you have have been an employee of the London Cycling Campaign - it kind of goes with the territory unfortunately...you lose all rights to claim impartiality and balance the moment you go on the payroll....and Rachel would have known that when she took the role. It actually came up in a FOI request made to TFL as to whether Rachel Aldred had declared a conflict of interest when she was commissioned by TFL to do a study as she was in her role at the LCC at the time (2012 - 2018). TFL wasn't able to answer as it would have exceeded the ?450 limit set on hours spent on an FOI request to find it.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Hi Rockets, > > I am not sure you're right about this. According > to TFL Quarter 4 of the 2018/19 financial year saw > an increase in the average daily cycle-km in > central London of 4 per cent with respect to the > same quarter in 2017/18. Across the whole of > London, 2018 saw the highest growth observed in > cycling volume since monitoring began (in 2015), > increasing almost 5 per cent from the previous > year and exceeding for the first time on record an > average daily volume of more than 4 million > cycle-km. > > Also, Rachel Aldred is a Professor in Transport at > the University of Westminster with over 25 peer > reviewed papers. I am right about this ;-) Over the course of the 10 years from 2008 growth was significant but it slowed from 2017 onwards and declined in 2019. Even the document you linked to (which is the year preceding the report where a 3% drop in cycling was seen) it says: Although the pace of change has notably slowed in recent years, the overall trajectory of growing travel demand and a progressive shift towards active, sustainable and efficient modes ? familiar over the last two decades ? is being maintained. And then goes on to note: However, further findings suggest that the demographic profile of people using these new cycle routes is not significantly different to that of the general population of people who cycle in London, and hence further work is necessary to make cycling more representative and accessible to a wider demographic group. In other words saturation point was being achieved within the traditional white male middle-aged cyclist demographic and this was why growth had slowed/declined.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I mean, it doesn't seem that crazy that a cycling > charity looking to develop a transport policy, > might want to engage an award winning public > policy expert. Might want to engage or retain....there is a big difference between the two and once you're on the payroll then you lose all claims of impartiality I am afraid. Anyway, we've been round and round in circles on Rachel Aldred so there's little point dragging it out again as I can't stand another discussion on what awaiting peer review means.....;-)

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > alice Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > doesnt her mum live on calton? > > > > when the review comes we need people involved > with > > a fresh objective eye. > > Rachel Aldred? I didn't know that. The problem is > as shown above - most of those who publish proper > research in this area are dismissed as > 'activists', because it all tends to point in the > same direction when it comes to the best ways to > encourage walking and cycling and reduce our > reliance on cars. It's not making car use as > convenient and comfortable as possible. They are dismissed as activists when they are activist researchers. Remember Rachel Aldred was a trustee of the London Cycling Campaign and headed their policy unit. So, her starting point is not entirely impartial. So I take her research with a hefty pinch of cycling salt ;-)

redpost Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Redpost - sorry to be the one to break it to > you > > but I am not making things up....pre-pandemic > > cycling levels in London had levelled > > off/declined. > > > > Rather than Wikipedia or (ahem, cycle lobbyist) > > Rachel Aldred I am sourcing my (up-to-date) > info > > from TFL. In fact, your Wikipedia link actually > > shows when the plateau started after 2017 - > you'll > > notice the Wikipedia figures declining from 730 > in > > 2016 to 721 in 2017. There had been a big > increase > > prior to 2017 but growth had levelled off and > even > > declined (despite more cycle lanes and routes > > being installed). > > > > Many, including TFL, have acknowledged that > cycle > > usage in London had, pre-pandemic, stopped > > increasing. In fact, in their last Travel in > > London report TFL reported that cycling had, in > > 2019, decreased by 3% year-on-year (but they > did > > suggest this was down to the counts being done > in > > bad weather). > > But there again in autumn 2020, 7% up in inner > london, 22% in outer london > > A statistical aberation does not make a trend > > https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2 > 021/january/outer-london-sees-22-per-cent-rise-in- > cycling-as-new-data-further-highlights-vital-role- > of-active-travel > > It's very clear that pro-active travel policies > increase cycling. Quite right Redpost - the statistical aberration of the corona-virus pandemic, when everyone was at home and cycling, should not be counted as a trend. You might not want to believe it but prior to coronavirus the year-on-year trend was flat/declining - and that comes from TFL. Why do you think that was the case? There are many who think that it had reached saturation point - that London is too large a city for the growth in popularity in cycling to be maintained.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Rockets Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > It's such a complex issue and I don't think > those > > implementing LTNs have the first clue what the > > root of people's obsession/reliance on the car > is. > > Every city has grappled with the same thing. I > don't buy the 'it wouldn't work in London' > argument. There is lot's of research on how you > get people to be less reliant on cars. As long as > driving is the most convenient way to get about, > lot's of people will tend to chose the path of > least resistance. Rahx3 - do you have any examples of cities that have successfully managed the issue?

Redpost - sorry to be the one to break it to you but I am not making things up....pre-pandemic cycling levels in London had levelled off/declined. Rather than Wikipedia or (ahem, cycle lobbyist) Rachel Aldred I am sourcing my (up-to-date) info from TFL. In fact, your Wikipedia link actually shows when the plateau started after 2017 - you'll notice the Wikipedia figures declining from 730 in 2016 to 721 in 2017. There had been a big increase prior to 2017 but growth had levelled off and even declined (despite more cycle lanes and routes being installed). Many, including TFL, have acknowledged that cycle usage in London had, pre-pandemic, stopped increasing. In fact, in their last Travel in London report TFL reported that cycling had, in 2019, decreased by 3% year-on-year (but they did suggest this was down to the counts being done in bad weather).

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cycling is in the reach of most people (especially > with electric bikes). But it's scary cycling on > busy roads. If you're a 'normal' (non-lycra) > person, it's not appealing. We need to make it a > safe easy, every day activity and that means > reallocating some space away from cars and towards > walking and cycling. It's a small part of the > whole picture, but an important part. But again, > you can only do that if the minority of car > drivers give something up. I'm not sure they will. > Not really. Not to the extent required. Has anyone done any research into why commuting cycling has struggled to break out from the white male middle class lycra (full kit wally ;-)) demographic who spend ?10,000 on a bike that would be more at home in the Tour De France? London already has a significant network of dedicated cycle lanes and a huge amount of road space has been dedicated to cycle lanes over the last few years but not, apparently, (pre-pandemic) with a reciprocal increase in cyclists doing the daily commute. Does anyone know why? There are plenty of routes around the city that avoid the busiest roads (when I used to cycle to Hammersmith I easily found a route that was very pleasant and avoided all of the main roads) - it's not difficult to do but this is a mega city and maybe people just travel too far to consider cycling - I must admit cycling up and down Dog Kennel Hill every day on my way to and from Hammersmith I did question why I thought it was a good idea as the leg burn kicked in!! We live in a mega city where most people don't live near where they work, significant areas have poor transportation infrastructure and we live on a cool temperate wet island where most people are no more than a couple of hours away from family and friends by car. The car is an important part of most people's day to day lives and people won't give it up easily so we need pragmatic measures that share road space and encourage active travel - and LTNs are not about sharing road space they are about dedicating road space to one type of road user and pushing the car traffic elsewhere. It's such a complex issue and I don't think those implementing LTNs have the first clue what the root of people's obsession/reliance on the car is.