LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[legalalien]

No,but I've had another flyer from Clean Air Dulwich: "Ask for MORE not less" and "Don't lose it. Improve it."

[Metallic]

Funny they don't deliver any of their stuff to my house, must be the big green poster in the window.

[Otto2]

In response to Legal alien who stated:

"But all about cycling again - when most children walk to school"

Article: "The absence of rigorous, national school travel data suggests children?s mobility is not valued as highly as adult commuting. "

And on walking in the article:

"But for children (and others) the main barrier to movement ? motor traffic ? is virtually omnipresent. A residential street closed to through traffic is a road open to walking and cycling, especially for those who have a stronger preference not to mix with motor traffic."

https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/local-transport-today/features/69199/do-inclusive-transport-strategies-really-consider-the-needs-of-all

[legalalien]

Actually to add the rest of the paragraph for the first quote:

"The absence of rigorous, national school travel data suggests children?s mobility is not valued as highly as adult commuting. This data gap is a barrier to research and inclusive transport planning. As Dr Anna Goodman, who was part of the Propensity to Cycle Tool (PCT) team, explains: ?If we had that data, we could do really high-quality research into the impact that school streets or low traffic neighbourhoods have on travel to school. As it is, we haven't got very far beyond anecdote on those questions.?

So the research to date is anecdote, rather than high-quality research? She's describing her own research e.g. the Dulwich cycle count, no?

[Rockets]

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.

[Rockets]

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]

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.

[DuncanW]

What is wrong with aspiring to the same levels of cycle-use as Amsterdam?

What are the big differences? I know we have some hills, but bikes can go up hills. It's also pancake flat between East Dulwich and central London (if you go via Peckham) - The route of the 37 bus from Nunhead to Clapham and beyond is also flat.

Also - neither London or Amsterdam are megacities, by the definition of 10M+ people. Amsterdam is part of the Randstad conurbation which has a very similar population size to London.

This is not an argument in favour of the current LTNs but why would we not aim high on encouraging and facilitating active travel.

I share your view that walking is just as important. The difference, in my view, is that there are few, if any encumbrances on walking in this area - not that I am aware of anyway. Compare that to cycling and it's more obvious, to me anyway, where you can spend money to effect change.

[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.

[heartblock]

Rararah, really is there any need to be quite so rude? It isn?t a ?character assignation?.

I don?t think the articles that are used as proof by others, that LTNs reduce traffic and encourage cycling are rigorous enough in terms of data or interpretation in the articles I have read by Rachel, in the same way I don?t think some articles published in the Lancet or Nature always are up to the mark, if trying to validate a concept.

This really is something student scientists are taught and it is called a critical review - something that happens to my research all the time.

That is why we have meta-analysis and systematic reviews of multiple research papers. Rachel is a committed researcher, her peer reviewed papers on cycling safety are excellent and the LTN papers are interesting and valid in terms of perception by cyclists and thinking about ways to change behaviour, they do not contain any data that proves that LTNs increase cycling, decrease car pollution with any statistical significance.

Now...can we get back to LTNs in Dulwich and the temporary or permanent nature of this things and WHEN is Southwark going to release the pollution and traffic data it promised?

[Spartacus]

Otto

No one is saying anything against (as you said) "This is not an argument in favour of the current LTNs but why would we not aim high on encouraging and facilitating active travel."

It's horses for courses, some people rely on a car, others like to walk or cycle and the problem is the LTNs are like using an atom bomb to crack a walnut. The fallout is felt far and wide after.

If active travel allowed fairer shared use of the road network by all (not excluding one group in favour of the other) then that is the way forward. But the council seems to want to paint cars as demon machines and banish them to the forbidden zone which is where the issue comes from.

If only councils talked and listened to residents and businesses then a fairer scheme might just be implemented.

[Rockets]

DuncanW Wrote:

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

> What is wrong with aspiring to the same levels of

> cycle-use as Amsterdam?

> What are the big differences? I know we have some

> hills, but bikes can go up hills. It's also

> pancake flat between East Dulwich and central

> London (if you go via Peckham) - The route of the

> 37 bus from Nunhead to Clapham and beyond is also

> flat.

> Also - neither London or Amsterdam are megacities,

> by the definition of 10M+ people. Amsterdam is

> part of the Randstad conurbation which has a very

> similar population size to London.

>

> This is not an argument in favour of the current

> LTNs but why would we not aim high on encouraging

> and facilitating active travel.

>

>

> I share your view that walking is just as

> important. The difference, in my view, is that

> there are few, if any encumbrances on walking in

> this area - not that I am aware of anyway. Compare

> that to cycling and it's more obvious, to me

> anyway, where you can spend money to effect

> change.

I aspired to be a professional sportsperson but unfortunately I wasn't good enough - sometimes aspirations don't match reality! ;-)

Even if you compare metropolitan areas London (14.5m) dwarfs Amsterdam (2.5m) and they are markedly different in terms of topography and geography.

I do always chuckle when I read about Amsterdam and The Netherlands when you realise they own more cars per capita than us in the UK!

[Earl Aelfheah]

heartblock Wrote:

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

> Rararah, really is there any need to be quite so

> rude? It isn?t a ?character assignation?.

You stated that Professor Aldred does not have over 25 peer reviewed articles (she does) and stated that "I have never been paid or employed by the organisation paying for the research, unlike Rachel" (which I don't believe is true).

Perhaps 'character assassination' is too emotive. It might be fairer to say that you have questioned another academic's professionalism and credentials in a way that is unjustified. This could be considered rude. Certainly ruder than anything I have said.

It's particularly stark considering the colour brochure you have held up as an exemplar of reliable research, which is produced by a Ltd company, and paid for by a property developer.

[Rockets]

Rahx3 - I don't think Heartblock's questioning of Rachel Aldred's output is unjustified - there are many who are, quite rightly, questioning how balanced Rachel Aldred and her research team's reports and research are.

I think that questioning is understandable as many (like the Guardian and everyone in the pro-LTN lobby) hold her reports as the gospel on the positive impact of LTNs and other active travel interventions. Yet when people, like us, scratch beneath the surface and discover that she was both a trustee and director of LCC (London's cycle lobby group) and headed their policy unit during her tenure between 2012-2018 and that both the LCC and TFL sponsor her to produce reports that they use to justify their interventions (that LCC lobby for) you can see why people might question how unbiased they are.

I also think Heartblock did a great job posing some questions about Rachel Aldred's methodology and conclusions.

It's not unreasonable to suggest there is a conflict of interest if you are working for/have worked for a group lobbying the very people who fund a lot of your research.

[first mate]

I've posted this before but seems relevant.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/21/trouble-cyclists-paradise-amsterdam-accused-favouring-pedestrians

[Earl Aelfheah]

.

[Earl Aelfheah]

I don?t hold anything as ?gospel?. But I do think she?s a serious researcher and I don?t think it?s reasonable to make false statements questioning someone?s output and professionalism and then fail to correct the record when challenged.

[legalalien]

Perhaps the difference between science and social science is part of the issue here?

http://www.differencebetween.net/science/difference-between-science-and-social-science/. It's an interesting discussion I've had with people before (possibly around a dinner table with too much wine involved).

[Otto2]

I agree with rahrahrah. Continuously discrediting her professionalism is a disheartening game and does not strengthen your argument against LTN's.

[heartblock]

Scientific method means questioning research, not the person. I have no issue with her funding or her research, I just wouldn?t offer up this research to prove LTNs work. Now, you may choose to reword and rephrase my opinion by accusing me of defaming her character, but I so obviously am not personalising, I am commenting on the data and how it is used by others.

This is why I thought to leave the conversation, because of the twisting of words and frankly.....a bit of gaslighting.

OK really off now, I did try. Bye.

[Rockets]

Heartblock - I do hope you will stay and not let those who seem to find it difficult to accept that people might have a different opinion to their own drive you out.

You explained, very clearly, why you think her research is not as impartial as others would like to think.I agree with you and I am sure lots of others do too.

Just because your view differs from others' doesn't mean it's wrong but we have seen time and time again throughout this process that many of those on the pro-LTN side of things find it difficult to accept any opinions other than those they hold themselves. They're also very partial to a bit of gaslighting - it forms a major part of their approach.

Part of the reason we are in this mess is because of the inability of some to see things from the other side.

[first mate]

I hope Heartblock stays too. I also do not agree with rah's take on what Heartblock has said and doubt very many others will either.

[Earl Aelfheah]

first mate Wrote:

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

> I also do not agree with rah's take on what Heartblock has said and

> doubt very many others will either.

I simply corrected two demonstrably false statements. Professor Aldred does have over 25 peer reviewed articles and she isn?t ?employed by or paid by people paying for her research?.

I have absolutely no problem with challenging the data, or the conclusions of a particular piece of research, but that is not what those statement do.

What are the matters of fact you disagree with exactly?

[Metallic]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> 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?

Yes.

[Otto2]

And, to add those who are discrediting Aldred's professionalism -- this from Rockets:

"I am glad we have finally established that Rachel Alfred's research is neither impartial or unbiased nor particularly scientific."

It would be good to stop this sort of thing as well as the Alice statement that I will not repeat as it is false.