LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Rockets]

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! ;-)

[Earl Aelfheah]

People can look at the data themselves. The upwards trend in cycling has been sustained over time. You?ve taken a single data point, but you?re ignoring the clear trend.

[Earl Aelfheah]

And I looked back. I didn?t say professor Aldred had 25 peer reviewed papers on the subject of LTNs. I said ?Rachel Aldred is a Professor in Transport at the University of Westminster with over 25 peer reviewed papers. I was pointing out that she is a serious academic.

But the point was not about one academic. It was that virtually all the evidence points towards the fact that if you create dedicated space for cycling and walking, you encourage cycling and walking. We can play games, argue about credentials, pick apart data points and try and score rhetorical ?goals? but do you genuinely disagree with this central point @Rockets? Do you believe a kid is as likely to drive on a busy road as one with less traffic or a segregated lane?

[Rockets]

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.

[Earl Aelfheah]

So no more cycle infrastructure?

[Earl Aelfheah]

And can you explain your comment about cycling in London having gone down. In how many of the years between 2014 to 2020 has it dropped? Just to be clear.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

[Rockets]

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.

[Rockets]

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.

[JohnL]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 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.

In Inner London we brought Peloton.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@ Rockets. Cycling has increased ever year since 2014 except one: 2019. TFL state that this was ?mainly driven by trends in outer London, and reflecting unusually poor weather during the counting periods?. We saw record increases in 2020. It?s not a declining picture is it?

But the academic research is all biased and TFL are deliberately misleading people. Which makes sense, because common sense would suggest that mixing with heavy traffic as a pedestrian or cyclist is relaxing.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Rockets Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am glad we have finally established

> that Rachel Alfred's research is neither impartial

> or unbiased nor particularly scientific.

Have we established that? I thought heartblock had said he didn?t dismiss her research. She is an award winning and established academic with a record of publications in peer reviewed journals and an h-index of 29.

[northernmonkey]

Never heard this before - do you have a source for it Alice? If not, lets go with, 'no' !

I think that on forums such as this, a throw away comment like that is taken as gospel and then repeated ad infinitum more widely. I've never heard it before re Prof Aldred so unless there is some proof behind it its probably best not to post it on a thread questioning her research.

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.

[Earl Aelfheah]

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> if I was paid by a pharmaceutical company to

> prove that a drug worked, my research would be

> compromised.

I don?t believe being a Trustee for a charity is a paid position btw. I?m not sure how Rachel Alfred can be said to have been paid to ?prove? something.

[legalalien]

Came across this report on the DfT website

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycling-and-walking-safety-rapid-evidence-assessment. Published in 2020 (but dated 2018), it?s a ?rapid evidence assessment? on cycling and walking safety commissioned by DfT, in an attempt to find evidence that could be used to improve people?s perceptions of safety, thereby increasing propensity to walk and cycle.

What?s striking about the document is what little hard data /evidence there seems to be for safety improvements for many of the interventions we?ve seen in the last few years. I?d always assumed that the fact that segregated cycle tracks would improve cyclist safety was a no-brainer, and that the debate was about the trade off between this and congestion. It seems that?s not the case, eg:

?There is also a set of interventions for which the evidence is more mixed. Overall, the evidence on cycle lanes and on cycle tracks that physically separate cyclists from motor traffic is inconclusive. There is no clear evidence that cycle lanes reduce risk, but the evidence suggests that physically separated cycle tracks may be more likely to be effective in reducing risk, but that cycle track design is vital in determining effectiveness, especially at intersections. Some key features for cycle design at intersections include bringing tracks close to parallel vehicle traffic to increase visibility; raising motor vehicle crossings at intersections; providing advance stop lines for vehicles; and dedicated signals to separate cyclists from turning vehicles.?

And this conclusion:

?Many of the cycling and walking interventions covered in this rapid evidence assessment show promise for reducing risk or perceived risk for cyclists and pedestrians. However, there is a lack of well-designed evaluations that adequately control for bias and also a lack of evidence that explores impact on both risk and participation.?

It feels a bit as though the data gathering is following the policy rather than the other way around. Someone reassure me that not all government policy-making works that way!

I think it is Prof Aldred?s colleague, Anna Goodman, who did the DV cycle count whose parents live in Dulwich, it was mentioned in some of the publicity surrounding that.

[roywj]

Two Automatic Number plate recognition cameras appeared this morning. One on East Dulwich Grove opposite JAGS and the other on Village Way (maybe another in the Village?)

I expect they are recording where the cars are going at the junction after travelling along EDG.

[northernmonkey]

It was expressly mentioned in the research as a declared potential conflict. This is why people suggesting randomly that others have some undisclosed interest is not ok. Both are serious academics who have published many times and are well respected and attempting to 'rubbish' them based on something you thought you heard isn't ok - especially not in the middle of a long thread where others are doing the same.

legalalien Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Came across this report on the DfT website

>

> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cycling

> -and-walking-safety-rapid-evidence-assessment.

> Published in 2020 (but dated 2018), it?s a ?rapid

> evidence assessment? on cycling and walking safety

> commissioned by DfT, in an attempt to find

> evidence that could be used to improve people?s

> perceptions of safety, thereby increasing

> propensity to walk and cycle.

>

> What?s striking about the document is what little

> hard data /evidence there seems to be for safety

> improvements for many of the interventions we?ve

> seen in the last few years. I?d always assumed

> that the fact that segregated cycle tracks would

> improve cyclist safety was a no-brainer, and that

> the debate was about the trade off between this

> and congestion. It seems that?s not the case,

> eg:

>

> ?There is also a set of interventions for which

> the evidence is more mixed. Overall, the evidence

> on cycle lanes and on cycle tracks that physically

> separate cyclists from motor traffic is

> inconclusive. There is no clear evidence that

> cycle lanes reduce risk, but the evidence suggests

> that physically separated cycle tracks may be more

> likely to be effective in reducing risk, but that

> cycle track design is vital in determining

> effectiveness, especially at intersections. Some

> key features for cycle design at intersections

> include bringing tracks close to parallel vehicle

> traffic to increase visibility; raising motor

> vehicle crossings at intersections; providing

> advance stop lines for vehicles; and dedicated

> signals to separate cyclists from turning

> vehicles.?

>

> And this conclusion:

>

> ?Many of the cycling and walking interventions

> covered in this rapid evidence assessment show

> promise for reducing risk or perceived risk for

> cyclists and pedestrians. However, there is a lack

> of well-designed evaluations that adequately

> control for bias and also a lack of evidence that

> explores impact on both risk and participation.?

>

> It feels a bit as though the data gathering is

> following the policy rather than the other way

> around. Someone reassure me that not all

> government policy-making works that way!

>

> I think it is Prof Aldred?s colleague, Anna

> Goodman, who did the DV cycle count whose parents

> live in Dulwich, it was mentioned in some of the

> publicity surrounding that.

[heartblock]

Well, close inspection of data, is not 'rubbishing' research, it is part of the important scientific inspection and critical analysis that I teach.

Students are taught to critically review published research -Was the data collection valid? Was the methodology appropriate? Does the conclusion reflect the statistical data?

I only wish that the safety research conducted by the German company Chemie Gr?nenthal for their sleeping pill- that it marketed around the world as safe for everyone, including expectant mothers, had been critically reviewed.

[Rockets]

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.

[JohnL]

The philosophy of this government (especially when Cummings was around but still now) seems to be that to get things done they need to work outside the civil service rules.

[Otto2]

Have your say here:

https://allpartycycling.org/resources/inquiries/reaching-our-active-travel-potential/

[ab29]

There was a mention here about Clean Air Dulwich taking photos of peoples houses and posting them on twitter. There is one photo published on their facebook page too.

[exdulwicher]

It feels a bit as though the data gathering is following the policy rather than the other way around. Someone reassure me that not all government policy-making works that way!

To be fair, it's a bit of a catch 22.

Some of it is simply standardised monitoring. You build a road, you count how many vehicles go along it and when. Normal stuff.

Gathering data on that before you've built the road isn't possible so there might be a policy that says "we will build a road between X and Y" for whatever reason and you can model some of it based on a number of factors but a lot of it is unknown.

With cycling and walking, it doesn't help that the UK lags significantly behind other countries - we know what works, the design principles are all well-established but it's not part of UK transport policy therefore it can't be done. It is improving (slowly) and thankfully the massively car-centric design principles that have been the lynchpin of almost every urban design scheme for the last 40 years are beginning to be overhauled but there's a lot of public and council opinion that also needs to be overhauled.

However, the devolved nature of it (where schemes are proposed by councils, bid for from defined pots of money and then selected (or not) by DfT) is very piecemeal, the data gathering (some by councils, some by TfL, some by DfT) is a bit fragmented and of varying quality and there's a lot of politics around it where schemes are proposed and approved because they're popular not necessarily because they're what's best.

Those general points are not unique to transport by any means - I often wonder how a lot of the UK functions on a day to day basis and usually conclude that it's in spite of Government, rather than because of it!

[JohnL]

exdulwicher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Those general points are not unique to transport

> by any means - I often wonder how a lot of the UK

> functions on a day to day basis and usually

> conclude that it's in spite of Government, rather

> than because of it!

Sometimes I wonder that for all Cummings failings this is actually what he meant in his ramblings.

Not that I'm making excuses for him.

[northernmonkey]

My point was that Alice wasn't closely inspecting the data - she was making a throw away comment that seems to have no basis and yet once said will allow others to say - "i'd heard that she has an interest in Dulwich as her parents / aunt whatever live there". Feel free to critically review the data, I think that is reasonable - but the point is that such reviews should be based on this data and not what you think you once heard or not!

heartblock Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well, close inspection of data, is not

> 'rubbishing' research, it is part of the important

> scientific inspection and critical analysis that I

> teach.

>

> Students are taught to critically review published

> research -Was the data collection valid? Was the

> methodology appropriate? Does the conclusion

> reflect the statistical data?

>

> I only wish that the safety research conducted by

> the German company Chemie Gr?nenthal for their

> sleeping pill- that it marketed around the world

> as safe for everyone, including expectant mothers,

> had been critically reviewed.