LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Rockets]

Also that research talks about people living in "or near" an LTN, seemingly combining the two - it seems to be suggesting that if you live near one you get the benefit of it which is obviously flawed - Court Lane and Lordship Lane (one is in and one is near but the experiences are very, very different).

More Aldred propaganda published without any sort of scrutiny by the Guardian and Peter Walker.....

[Otto2]

The in-depth study is available here:

https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/q87fu/

[heartblock]

Living ?near? an LTN.....an exercise in how to skew data. So if on a boundary road, with high inequality then classed as ?benefiting? from an LTN despite an increase in traffic and pollution. The LCC up to it's truth-twisting yet again.

[Otto2]

Actually, no. From the study: (worth a read - for example, there are recommendations for Southwark specifically in terms of making things more equitable for access to LTN's)- but - to the point above --

"We defined the boundaries of LTNs specifically for the purpose of this paper and hence not necessarily in line with areas shown in intervention maps drawn by districts. For this analysis, a ?new LTN? is that area in which we would expect the new modal filters installed between March and September2020to have reduced through motor traffic. Some districts included a wider area within their map, for instance including a larger new zone with reduced speed limits, or an adjacent area already impermeable to through motor traffic. We removed ?boundary roads? continuing to carry substantial through motor traffic from our spatial dataset of the extent of LTNs, and trimmed the LTN areas to exclude buildings facing onto those boundary roads.We generated a separate set of LTN boundary roads for analysis of differences between those living inside LTNs versus those living in adjacent boundary areas."

[Rockets]

So are they saying that any road within 500 metres would have seen a reduction in traffic? But they say they also removed boundary roads that continue to carry substantial through traffic and excluding buildings facing onto those boundary roads....why did they do that?

So can we conclude then that Lordship Lane would be considered a boundary road and that it and the Lordship Lane estate were excluded from the study as it faced onto the boundary road?

If so, this report is massively flawed. Funny how we can ponder these questions yet the Guardian can't!

[Otto2]

The study itself addresses the question of equity and access to LTN's. It makes no claim re traffic reduction. Worth reading the study - it is interesting!

[Rockets]

Yes I realise that it isn't about reduction in traffic but I am trying to determine why they are excluding boundary roads in a study trying to determine whether they are equitable - if you look at the Dulwich LTNs by excluding boundary roads you are precluding less valuable houses and council housing from being included.

Also the research concludes that across London the measures are not benefitting wealthier areas more but that doesn't mean the Dulwich ones are fair - just look at how much bigger some of the other LTN areas are. Would be very interesting to apply the same model and analysis on Dulwich alone.

[Otto2]

The reason is in the study (it is worth a read in full):

"Our analysis addressed the following research questions:

1.With respect to key dimensions of equity (e.g. ethnicity, deprivation), how equitably are LTNs distributed across London?

2.Are there salient differences between LTNs and immediately adjacent areas?

3.Are any relationships (or lack thereof) observed for London as a whole also presentwithin individual districts?

We include the second research question because boundary roads and/or adjacent areas might experience at least short-term traffic displacement after introducing a new LTN. In addition, while LTNs can benefit people living in adjacent areas through increased opportunities to make local trips by foot or by bicycle, the magnitude of this benefit is expected to be even greater for residents living inside an LTN, who also enjoy the benefits of reduced motor traffic in the street that they live on. As such, differences in demographic characteristics between LTN areas and adjacent areas might indicate an equity issue, even without any sustained disbenefit to adjacent areas."

[legalalien]

Camee across this interesting statement in a TfL response to a cycleway question last week

"TfL has also recently acted to strengthen the liaison between boroughs and the emergency services, and to ensure that feedback about projects continues to be listened to after the introduction of projects. This has allowed any specific local issues to be raised and addressed, and has led, for example, to the much more widespread use of camera enforcement rather than physical barriers to close roads with easy access for blue light response vehicles."

Sounds like an acknowledgement that things weren't being handled properly initially. Good that steps are seemingly being taken to address the issue...

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-2159-2021

[Rockets]

Otto2 Wrote:

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

> The reason is in the study (it is worth a read in

> full):

>

> "Our analysis addressed the following research

> questions:

>

> 1.With respect to key dimensions of equity (e.g.

> ethnicity, deprivation), how equitably are LTNs

> distributed across London?

> 2.Are there salient differences between LTNs and

> immediately adjacent areas?

> 3.Are any relationships (or lack thereof) observed

> for London as a whole also presentwithin

> individual districts?

>

> We include the second research question because

> boundary roads and/or adjacent areas might

> experience at least short-term traffic

> displacement after introducing a new LTN. In

> addition, while LTNs can benefit people living in

> adjacent areas through increased opportunities to

> make local trips by foot or by bicycle, the

> magnitude of this benefit is expected to be even

> greater for residents living inside an LTN, who

> also enjoy the benefits of reduced motor traffic

> in the street that they live on. As such,

> differences in demographic characteristics

> between LTN areas and adjacent areas might

> indicate an equity issue, even without any

> sustained disbenefit to adjacent areas."

"short-term traffic displacement" - did they also run the model if the displacement is not short-term and is actually permanent.....no, I didn't think so! ;-) So they are making assumptions based on their own bias.....what a surprise! ;-)

The problem with this type of "academic" research is that it is flawed from the outset because the academics go into it with an agenda and from all the commentary provided by Peter Walker et al it is clear the goal was only ever to counter The Times' article.

[devs]

I've read the Report. Did I miss the bit that defines an LTN? And what a Nieghbourhood is. A closed road is not a Neighbourhood.Its just a road with less traffic on. Surely a Neighbourhoid in our case would be the whole of East Dulwich, ( shops, schools, park, bus stops, train station) which would include the closure of Lordship Lane. All my walks, as I cant drive, would then be pollution free. It would be great to wait for a bus free from standing traffic belching out fumes.

[legalalien]

Just read the report, it is interesting, including the acknowledgement that the Dulwich scheme can't be justified on equity grounds:

"We are also aware that some districts initially implemented emergency measures based on schemes already under consultation before the Covid-19 pandemic. This is unsurprising given the very short timeframe (around 4 months) within which districts were expected to submit and then execute their plans, but may have meant that equity was less a consideration than expediency for the very first schemes. For example, Southwark implemented oneof its first measures in the most affluent partof the district, based on schemes already under wayin that area."

I was glad to see the express acknowledgement of the problem with using 2011 census data. Many of the schemes, including those in Hackney, which has the most schemes I believe, are in areas which have seen extensive levels of gentrification over the last decade and often (if what you see on the internet is to be believed) it seems to be the incomers supporting the schemes over those who have been there since pre-gentrification. Lambeth, another area at the forefront of LTNs is also an area where gentrification is happening... So I'm not entirely convinced that the data being analysed is entirely correct. But in any case, the question of which areas the LTNs have been put into is from my perspective less of an issue than the unacceptability /inequity of deliberately creating unacceptably high levels of congestion and pollution on the boundary roads - which as mentioned, this report does not address.

[Nigello]

Some of the (to some, welcome) measures at schools are already falling into disrepair. Bollards often come loose and the ones at the back of (ie. on Friern Road) the RC primary on Barry Road have mostly gone and the blocks that make up the perforated kerb at Heber on Heber Road are missing/split. I can see them just withering away because the council CBA to keep them in working order.

[malumbu]

Do me a favour boys and girls. Stop making insinuations challenging the integrity of academics/researchers. I expect that most social scientists knit their own muesli, cycle on sit up and beg three speed Sturmey Archer bikes and live in Yurts. But that doesn't infer bias, and papers are peer reviewed before publication. I'm sure it is not intentional but this takes me to the whole populist agenda and for the first time in my life we have some leaders across the western world who consider it right for society to despise experts and bettering your through education.

[Rockets]

Malumbu - should we just take whatever is posted by The Guardian and Rachel Aldred as the truth and not challenge some of the findings....come on, really....just because you don't like what we say doesn't mean we should not be providing the scrutiny....to be fair to everyone here if no-one provided any scrutiny the council would be doing what they want when they want and getting away with it - consider what we are doing as a public service to ensure some balance?! ;-)

P.S. you still haven't answered how you use your car?

[snowy]

Hmm, who to believe more - Professor Aldred, publisher of 25 peer reviewed papers at the university of Westminster and winner of the European Social Research Council award for ?outstanding impact in public policy? or Rockets off the internet?

[Rockets]

You forgot to mention Professor Alred, the pro-LTN closure lobbyist, London Cycling Campaign funded environmental campaigner - I am sure you will agree it's an important point when reviewing her research. ;-)

And I am not expecting anyone to believe me, far from it - it's for everyone to make their own mind's up. But, of course, I am not having my thoughts on this published in the Guardian and there is good reason for that because I am not impartial - Rachel Aldred is having her work published in the Guardian and of course (see above) she is not impartial. But that doesn't seem to matter to Peter Walker, the Guardian or the pro-LTN lobby.

I really love it when a few of us scratch beneath the surface of these stories and highlight the inevitable ifs, buts and maybes that are used to create the pro-LTN headlines.

It is what the pro-closure lobby and council absolutely hate - a little bit of scrutiny!

[snowy]

Thanks for pointing out you don?t really understand peer review!

[Otto2]

Cracking on, the research paper by Rachel Aldred, Ersilia Verlingheri, Megan Sharkey, Irena Itova, and Anna Goodman notes that the LTN roll-out process is ongoing and that further analysis will be applied as more LTN's roll out - that it is a changing picture - a snapshot if you will of just the first phase. And, they have framed that snapshot with recommendations for ensuring equity in active travel infrastructure going forward.

[Otto2]

Please feel free to try to tear down the notable credentials of the other four women. I'm waiting...

[alice]

Dulwich LTN has failed. It will be removed.

[womanofdulwich]

You sound very confident Alice.

[legalalien]

Watching Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting. Network Rail presentation on Denmark Hill and Peckham Rye stations. Mock up of Peckham Rye looks great. Apparently new public square outside, but seem to be some concerns about ability to retain existing local business. Not sure if there are issues there.

[Rockets]

Alice - I agree - the LTNs have failed, they have divided a community and made life for some better by making life for far more worse - that's not at all equitable. Whether they are removed or not remains to be seen as the council is trying their utmost to cling on to them and the longer the review is delayed the more it looks like they are trying to come up with some sort of positive to help justify them.

I am still amazed that they haven't listened to the emergency services and put removable barriers in at the DV/Calton Avenue junction - they have elsewhere so why not there I wonder?

Snowy - I do know what peer review means - I also know what Under Peer Review means which this research is (it's plastered all over it). Also, does it say anywhere in the 42 pages of the report who paid for it?

[exdulwicher]

I really love it when a few of us scratch beneath the surface of these stories and highlight the inevitable ifs, buts and maybes that are used to create the pro-LTN headlines.

It is what the pro-closure lobby and council absolutely hate - a little bit of scrutiny!

Snowy - I do know what peer review means - I also know what Under Peer Review means which this research is (it's plastered all over it). Also, does it say anywhere in the 42 pages of the report who paid for it?

In that case we await with interest the names of the authors, their publicly viewable CVs (including their funding), links to their previous work and of course the peer-review of the Dulwich Alliance "report" - you know, the one that copy/pasted a whole load of comments off the Commonplace consultation page, dressed it up in a nice shiny format and was promptly seized upon as being the definitive word in all things LTN.

You didn?t seem so vocal in calling for that to be peer-reviewed or enquire where their funding came from??