LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Spartacus]

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

It's the Lycra cyclists that make it scary for normal cyclists 😱😂

[Rockets]

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.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Commuting has increased and diversified as a result of segregated cycle lanes ( http://rachelaldred.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/160511RCSpaper-final.pdf ). But to commute in is slightly different to making local journeys. From here it requires a certain level of fitness and 'logistics' (showers, lockers at your destination etc). There are also still many hairy junctions / main roads despite improvements. And outside of the centre, we've done very little - LTNs are a way of trying to address that. Studies of LTNs show an increase in 'normal' people cycling locally, especially kids, when compared with control sites (I know people will say it isn't so).

We know what you need to do to make it easier, safer and a more 'normal' activity. You create quieter routes, where traffic is restricted or removed.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

[LTN BooHoo]

High court ruling in favour of Lambeth?s LTNs. Take heart! Hopefully One Dulwich won?t waste money challenging Southwark.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2021/1745.html

[redpost]

Rockets Wrote:

>

> 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?"

>

Rockets - can you please stop making stuff up, there's been a steady increase in london cycling over the past 20 years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_London#Statistics

[exdulwicher]

Has anyone done any research into why commuting cycling has struggled to break out from the white male middle class lycra (full kit wally winking smiley) demographic who spend ?10,000 on a bike that would be more at home in the Tour De France?

Most of it is as simple as "build it and they will come".

If you build A-roads and flyovers and car parks and put your supermarkets 15 mins out of town, people will drive.

If you build proper segregated cycle lanes and proper cycle parking and everything is within easy reach, people will cycle (or walk/scooter etc)

There's other stuff that helps - Santander Cycles hire scheme for example has been absolutely critical in increasing % of journeys done by bike in central London but that was alongside schemes such as protected cycleways. Helps if there are additional incentives like showers at work too although that's not always essential for basic commuting. Sometimes you also need some stick (such as making driving and/or parking at your destination more difficult/expensive).

What rah3 says above - it's the path of least resistance but it also becomes a circular argument. More people drive so the roads feel less safe for walking/cycling so more people drive (because it's "safer"), which makes the roads more hostile for walking and cycling....

You can probably argue a host of subsidiary factors such as the comfort of sitting in your own air conditioned 3-piece suite on wheels, your choice of music, the status symbol aspect of a nice car and so on but a lot of that is unnecessary detail.

[Rockets]

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).

[Rockets]

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?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Here's a list of cities that have done well: https://www.cyclist.co.uk/news/6432/london-ranked-outside-top-50-cities-for-cycling-worldwide

Paris has seen a massive transformation in recent years. So have a number of German cities, including Berlin. Obviously in the Netherlands they have completely embraced cycling - and Amsterdam, although it did have more of a cycling culture to start with, still had to fight opposition to road changes in the 70s - it wasn't always as it is now and it could have gone in a different direction.

https://bicycledutch.wordpress.com/2013/12/12/amsterdam-children-fighting-cars-in-1972/

[Earl Aelfheah]

.

[malumbu]

Legalalien laid down the gauntlet to argue against your current view point. Only Rahrahrah and I did this - common those against LTNs - let's hear your counterargument.

[alice]

There is nothing wrong with the principle of LTNs. It is the location of their implementation in Dulwich which is at fault.

[redpost]

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/2021/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.

[legalalien]

Sorry - busy answering emails.

Dulwich is a part of the borough with very high levels of car ownership as well as a large number of popular schools which attract pupils from a wide catchment area. As a result, there is a peak in traffic during the time periods in which students travel to and from school. Those time periods are longer than might be expected for a single school, because of the high number of independent schools in the area, which have earlier start times and later finish times than their state counterparts.

Despite long term campaigning and attempts by many schools to encourage pupils to walk or cycle to school, the prevailing culture in many of the schools had (prior to the LTNs) changed very little: the majority of primary aged children at the independent schools in particular were driven to and from school, and thereafter to a range of after school activities. This was the case whether they lived locally or further afield, and the cars concerned were largely environmentally unfriendly SUVs. The volume of vehicles created a safety hazard for pedestrians and cyclists; which then reinforced the "we have to drive" behaviour. The five-way Dulwich Village junction, in particular, was dangerous, with cars turning into Court Lane unsure about the change in rights of way that happened following the previous re-design of the junction. With limited powers at its disposal, it made sense for the Council to try and change the pattern of behaviour by closing the junction and giving parents a reason to revisit their behaviour/ get their kids walking and cycling to school - and with roads quieter than usual during the pandemic, this was a one-off opportunity to try and change people's commuting habits. The schools are now reporting an increase in students walking and cycling to school, so the measures have had some success in driving desirable behaviour.

[Rockets]

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.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

[alice]

doesnt her mum live on calton?

when the review comes we need people involved with a fresh objective eye.

[alice]

The long and expensive redesign of that junction increased the problems there. Which suited some who always wanted a more 'villagey' suburb. Unfortunately because of the local geography, parks, golf course, sports grounds, private playing fields The effects of that small closure had knock on effects that spread like ripples on a stormy lake, affecting many many more people than benefited. Simple solutions say calton using gilkes to exit onto Dulwich village thus simplifying the village junction, Allowing P4 to use court lane for faster transit nearer more people, Coaches and parents having drop off points with freshair walk to school, having actual bike lanes, banning on road parking etc etc

[Earl Aelfheah]

@Rockets - TFL data shows a sustained long term trend in the growth of cycling, linked to improvements in infrastructure... details towards the bottom of page 15: http://content.tfl.gov.uk/travel-in-london-report-12.pdf

[Spartacus]

Wow Legal

Your counter argument has actually been useful in highlighting the solution

It's not street closures or LTNs

It's simply to relocate schools away from the area thus dumping traffic on other boroughs and driving away the parents who moved here to be within the catchment area further reducing car usage and congestion

Of course it's all tongue in cheek but an interesting alternative to LTNs

[Earl Aelfheah]

alice Wrote:

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

> The long and expensive redesign of that junction

> increased the problems there. Which suited some

> who always wanted a more 'villagey' suburb.

> Unfortunately because of the local geography,

> parks, golf course, sports grounds, private

> playing fields The effects of that small closure

> had knock on effects that spread like ripples on a

> stormy lake, affecting many many more people than

> benefited. Simple solutions say calton using

> gilkes to exit onto Dulwich village thus

> simplifying the village junction, Allowing P4 to

> use court lane for faster transit nearer more

> people, Coaches and parents having drop off points

> with freshair walk to school, having actual bike

> lanes, banning on road parking etc etc

You're suggesting opening Gilkes Road from Calton Avenue an directing buses down Court Lane, so that it doesn't serve the village? Would Court lane only be open to buses, or are you saying that we should roll back the filters and open a previously closed road additionally? Where would the coach and private school drop off points be and where would these freshair walks be? Would they be on no through roads?

I'm in favour of actual, segregated bike lanes, and removing on street parking, but if you think LTNs are controversial, wait until you tell people they can no longer park outside their houses. That would also have a knock on on surrounding streets - I guarantee that many of the same arguments deployed against LTNS would be used to resist the removal of on street parking and segregated bike lanes that also remove parking.

I think you're suggestions are in many ways more radical than the LTNS. I suspect they'd be politically more sensitive as well.

[Earl Aelfheah]

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.

[Rockets]

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 ;-)

[Earl Aelfheah]

I'm not sure her working with transport charities invalidates her published, peer reviewed research. She is an expert on transport policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Aldred

The problem is, most people who are experts in transport planning, management and policy tend not to advocate for more car use in cities. So there are two conclusions you can reach, either:

1) They're all biased and research cannot be trusted, or

2) Their expertise has informed their view in a way that we should probably pay attention to

But then we have all had enough of experts.