LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[heartblock]

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.

[malumbu]

JohnL Wrote:

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

> 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.

I hate civil service rules, with fond memories of Joe Strummer (I'll be posting on the Lounge something for the weekend)

[Metallic]

University of Westminster ranking in Sunday Times listings? 126/131

[northernmonkey]

That's the overall rating but not reflective necessarily of individual departments.

I feel that we've now reached the 'try to discredit anyone who disagrees with you phase'. Heartblock made a criticism of the research which is reasonable to do. Others may disagree with these comments, but they are not at least focused on Professor Aldred personally or attempting to discredit because you feel the University isn't 'eminent' enough.

[Metallic]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> That's the overall rating but not reflective

> necessarily of individual departments.

>

> I feel that we've now reached the 'try to

> discredit anyone who disagrees with you phase'.

> Heartblock made a criticism of the research which

> is reasonable to do. Others may disagree with

> these comments, but they are not at least focused

> on Professor Aldred personally or attempting to

> discredit because you feel the University isn't

> 'eminent' enough.

Come off it.

[northernmonkey]

Were you just making sure people had the relevant understanding of the Sunday Times rating in your last comment then?

[Rockets]

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"?

[Metallic]

northernmonkey Wrote:

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

> Were you just making sure people had the relevant

> understanding of the Sunday Times rating in your

> last comment then?

I think I was saying a piece of "research" from the U of Westminster is not exactly the topmost "research" we should be depending upon. And that you defending it sounds as if, oh, maybe you are her pal?

[northernmonkey]

No - not at all. Never met her or had anything to do with her, but I am fed up with this rubbishing of 'experts' because what, we know better? It all just feels a bit brexity.

Feel free to share other research from other academics writing on this subject and people can consider, but right now what we seem to have is 'no, experts don't know - I, man on the street who uses my eyes can see much more clearly' which frankly isn't much of a pushback!

[Otto2]

I agree.

[heartblock]

In answer to Rockets, as Rachel says herself...."changes appear to spur increased local walking, despite largely being interpreted as cycling interventions (Aldred et al., 2019)"

Although I disagree with the 'appear' part.

So this 'perceived' increase in walking is added to cycling - then quoted as a change in 'active travel' and the used by LCC and others to say there is peer, reviewed proof that LTNs increase the amount of cycling.

I'm an absolute advocate for cycling and walking, but and again - from Rachel.."Although the ?LTN area? sample size is small (most intervention areas weren?t LTNs) and uncertainty about effect sizes is large, we find consistent evidence about their direction. LTNs have reduced residents? car ownership and/or use, and the already demonstrated increase in active travel from mini-Holland schemes is higher in LTNs"

Uncertainty - means the statistics were not significant, so I'm not sure how she comes to the 'demonstrated increase' conclusion.

Yes I am used to randomised clinical trials that are very rigorous, but when research has words such as 'appear' and 'uncertainty' and 'direction' rather than actual statistically significant data, I cannot see how this can be used to validate the increases in congestion and traffic seen in Dulwich and East Dulwich, due to poorly planned LTNs.

[Rockets]

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?

[DulwichCentral]

@rockets

My goodness what an excellent conspiracy theory! Another one to add to your list ;)

[legalalien]

I think the cycle interest (LCC plus their Southwark branch) in this area is part of a plan to ensure a viable end to end long distance commuting network - the idea that the cycling network is only as strong as its weakest link-rather than a concern for local cycling. The DV junction, Champion Hill, various other routes are critical to this. Safe Routes to Schools also keen on cycling but possibly don?t need to focus on the same routes as their concern is local trips. But there?s something of an unholy alliance (my perception) that prevents the two issues being considered separately. The various pro LTN groups are stronger together, no doubt, even if specific tweaks might work for one or other group. Just my perception.

[Rockets]

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.

[heartblock]

Actually Rockets isn?t so far off the mark. There was a particular push by the LCC and walking as active travel is historically high in this area, probably due to parks and a lovely main road. Lordship Lane is a gem - it?s a shame that Southwark seem to be unable to lavish much love on it. It?s all about the ?square? after all....

[Penguin68]

Dulwich is very hilly - most of the rest of the borough isn't. And roads like the South Circular - which you have to use to get to many places outside Dulwich - and Lordship Lane - are narrow and full of traffic (even more so now roads have been closed) - I am not surprised that cycling is comparatively low (and conversely other modes of active travel higher). And many Dulwich residents I'm guessing are somewhat older than in other parts of the borough (again a militating condition against use of cycles).

And we do not have, as more inner parts of the borough have, Boris Bikes, or whatever they are now called. If we had tube stations in a 10-15 minute walk (lots of inner and north London do) then maybe there would be even more use of public transport.

Cycles may be one answer to reducing use of cars - but for many people outside SE London there are many other alternatives available - for us there aren't, and cycles are not a good answer for many of us, given (a) the topology and (b) the unsuitability of many roads and © the unsuitability of many of the potential riders to be on bikes, here, in the first place. And the option of turning every road to a cycle exclusive one would actually be attractive only to the monomaniacal lobbyists who have captured the council's attention.

[legalalien]

I had a quick look at the propensity to cycle tool mentioned in the Goodman report re increased cycling in the village

https://www.pct.bike/

(Note that this is a tool designed by a team led by prof Aldred/ anna Goodman which describes itself as ?designed to assist transport planners and policy makers to prioritise investments and interventions to promote cycling?. I haven?t had a chance to try and see whether it suggests the Village should be a focus. I note that there?s a hefty disclaimer including that ?The PCT is limited by the geographic resolution of the origin-destination data it uses, and uses a deterministic (not probabilistic) routing algorithm. Thus, care should be taken when using the PCT to plan for specific interventions, for example estimating cycling potential on two parallel streets. The tool is designed to support planning based on local knowledge and we cannot accept liability for any loss or damage caused.? (The parallel streets thing made me think of the Croxted / Rosendale situation).

If you look at the schools layer you can see the 2011 census info about numbers of pupils travelling to local state primaries by mode, which suggests that

most children were walking to school back then. As notes in the Goodman report the independent schools aren?t included, which probably skews the figures. I started to read manual C2 which indicates that the tool may suggest / take into account the potential for children to switch from walking to cycling (not just driving to cycling) which can result in a less energy- intensive form of active travel for those children, which is interesting.

Also quite interesting to see the relative percentages of people commuting to work by cycle vs by car back in 2011.

[heartblock]

As an observer, there is a lot of walking and cycling on ED Grove, obviously because of the schools, but also as a local route and now a health centre that has far more local services that the previous Dulwich Hospital.

The only changes I have seen after the LTNs went in are;

1. Congestion that fills the road end-to-end during the school run/rush hour (this used to be a busy time, but not crawling and idling traffic)

2. Adult cyclists using the pavement or the opposing lane (there has been observed increase in cyclists over the last 10 years)

3. A huge increase of children on bikes and scooters - but on the pavement and travelling at an adults walking pace, have actually been hit on the back of my shins twice while walking to HH station.

Again just observations and a bias against car pollution :)

[Rockets]

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.

[Lordshiplads]

A friend works for southwark council told us they're thinking of bringing in a car charge to anyone who lives in the ltns of dulwich because they're so broke. Up to ?500 per car per year!!! Could make the council millions. Outrageous on top of everything else

[Lordshiplads]

A friend works for southwark council told us they're thinking of bringing in a car charge to anyone who lives in the ltns of dulwich because they're so broke. Up to ?500 per car per year!!!

[heartblock]

In many ways...pedestrians

(so I?ll qualify, those who main mode of travel is walking, which is pretty much me, even journeys into inner London tend to be more walk than PT, usually a max of 2 hours but have been known to walk back from Lambeth Palace as an example. A great walk, if you just point towards home you discover so much of historic London by winding through the streets)

....have been almost forgotten in Southwark?s LTN ?planning?, the pavements are atrocious, street cleaning awful, well on ED Grove at least, seems that every area an LTN has been put in has newer paving, freshly tarmaced roads, nice seating areas, new plants, new trees..I could go on.

Lordship Lane is visited so often by locals and people visiting, but honestly...it does need some money spent on it, the temp barriers could be removed and the pavement extended? Street cleaned more often? And of course the funnelled traffic doesn?t help pedestrians or businesses.

[heartblock]

Sorry...I know I?m probably overdoing it today... but an interesting article on bias in relation to encouraging cycling using LTNs etc and optimism bias, by a peer reviewed chief scientist.

?Optimism bias

We need to be careful to avoid optimism bias when projecting the impact of measures to reduce transport carbon emissions. The models that are used for this purpose are complex and opaque, with many input assumptions and parameters to be specified. Optimism bias arises when modellers make choices, consciously or unconsciously, that tend towards achieving a strategic purpose. Yet optimism bias leads to outcomes that fall short of those that are forecast.

It is now part of the culture of transport planning to foccus on the opportunities for promoting cycling. But caution is needed. When addressing the impact of changing mode share, attention should be paid to the modes from which the shift to cycling is expected. For instance, the well-established Propensity to Cycle Tool (www.pct.bike), which assesses the potential to increase the amount of cycling, assumes that commuters are equally likely to shift to cycling from any prior mode.

However, the evidence from Copenhagen and elsewhere indicates that a shift to cycling from public transport is much more likely than from car use, which would substantially reduce the carbon reduction benefits assumed from boosting cycling.

If optimism bias informs assumptions about mode shift from cars to bikes, or about the scope for car sharing, then disappointment is likely to ensue.?

David Metz is an honorary professor at the Centre for Transport Studies UCL. He was formerly the DfT?s chief scientist.

[Metallic]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Sorry...I know I?m probably overdoing it today...

> but an interesting article on bias in relation to

> encouraging cycling using LTNs etc and optimism

> bias, by a peer reviewed chief scientist.

>

> ?Optimism bias

> We need to be careful to avoid optimism bias when

> projecting the impact of measures to reduce

> transport carbon emissions. The models that are

> used for this purpose are complex and opaque, with

> many input assumptions and parameters to be

> specified. Optimism bias arises when modellers

> make choices, consciously or unconsciously, that

> tend towards achieving a strategic purpose. Yet

> optimism bias leads to outcomes that fall short of

> those that are forecast.

>

> It is now part of the culture of transport

> planning to foccus on the opportunities for

> promoting cycling. But caution is needed. When

> addressing the impact of changing mode share,

> attention should be paid to the modes from which

> the shift to cycling is expected. For instance,

> the well-established Propensity to Cycle Tool

> (www.pct.bike), which assesses the potential to

> increase the amount of cycling, assumes that

> commuters are equally likely to shift to cycling

> from any prior mode.

>

> However, the evidence from Copenhagen and

> elsewhere indicates that a shift to cycling from

> public transport is much more likely than from car

> use, which would substantially reduce the carbon

> reduction benefits assumed from boosting cycling.

>

> If optimism bias informs assumptions about mode

> shift from cars to bikes, or about the scope for

> car sharing, then disappointment is likely to

> ensue.?

>

> David Metz is an honorary professor at the Centre

> for Transport Studies UCL. He was formerly the

> DfT?s chief scientist.

That's more like it!