LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[ab29]

From a perspective of someone who walks and uses buses in London, there often seems to be no planning nor consideration given to how the cycle lanes will affect pedestrians and buses. Just squeeze one everywhere, no matter that it will make the traffic worst or pavements for pedestrians narrower.

[Rockets]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> Actually though, anti LTN posters above were using

> that clickbait to complain about bike lanes. See

> ab29 above.

>

> Thankfully, based on the actual data in the New

> Statesman article it can be seen that the view

> that London is the most congested city because of

> bike lanes is absolute rubbish. The data that

> Inrix produced doesn't show this - someone in the

> organisation did a massive overreach.

They have since clarified that it is a contributing factor - it's just not the biggest factor. Anyone who spends any time travelling around central London can see for themselves that there are congestion hotspots due to the provision of ever bigger and under-used cycle lanes.

But isn't that part of the nudge approach so many of these schemes embrace - increase congestion to convince people to find another way of travelling?

I think the reason the pro-cycle lobby has jumped on this story (and the usual suspects like Jeremy Vine and Peter Walker have been on it very quickly) is because they can see where it is leading with the rumours of a massive drop in cycling in 2021 to below pre-pandemic levels. They know that when the cycling figures for 2021 get published the narrative could change against them very quickly and there could be increased political pressure to justify any continued investment in such measures.

[malumbu]

Good stuff rocks. I thought I had no more value to add to this thread - I can't comment on the data in Southwark, nor to do I believe that they are corrupt, incompetent or in the pockets of those living in the leafy boroughs.

But now you have turned to cycling policy, well that is a different matter. I am long exhausted on e scooters, see every thread in the last year or two. But cycling, always happy to join in. Although this could appear as if you are trying to get the discussion lounged, something that has been leveled at me for some reason in the past.

But rather than go on about bikes, you have unwittingly put down the argument on why there does need interventions on motorised road vehicles, in particular private drivers.

So why have we got segregated cycle lanes, rather than encourage shared use? Drivers and unacceptable dangers to cyclists. But surely, bikes are road users and have just as much right to be on the road. Sadly 95% of drivers don't see it that way, and not only have issues with the bike being on the road and the 'need' to overtake it, they don't pay much heed to speed limits either. A responsible government would take on the road lobby and try to reverse 60 years of pro-car policies, and the 'entitled motorist' but that died a death under the Labour governnment.

So the reward for drivers for their lack of ability to share road space with cyclists is to lose road space through segregated cycle lanes.

And the same can be applied to air quality, carbon emissions, essential users such as blue lights and those with mobility issues.

How many drivers say - I drive less because

I want to reduce emissions

and/or the road should be there for essential users?

I expect the number is a small fraction. So we have to have hard interventions.

I couldn't have explained it better myself

[Rockets]

But Malumbu, the point I am making is that if a huge investment is made is cycling infrastructure and cycling numbers are plummetting (I actually think it was a mistake for Will Norman to herald the increase in lockdown cycling quite so aggressively as it was likely to come back to haunt him) then it is only going to be a matter of time before the paymasters start asking questions about the value of the investment and whether it is worth it and whether anymore of it can be justified.

The same can be applied locally, LTNs aren't delivering what was promised and people are asking why the council is continuing to pursue them.

[goldilocks]

Rockets - lets have some data on 'cycling numbers plummeting'. Offical data using comparative counts though.

The thing about cycling infrastructure and 'paymasters' is interesting too - its cheap. It doesn't require anywhere near as much maintenance as the road network - the mass of bikes plus riders is no where near as damaging to road surfaces etc.

[Rockets]

Goldilocks, the DfT has published stats showing cycling has returned to pre-pandemic levels across the country.

TFL has also been publishing numbers (quietly) about the downturn in cycling numbers. As I said before the problem is that Will Norman, TFL and councils got so excited by lockdown cycling numbers that they used it to herald the arrival of modal shift and used it to "validate" the LTN and cycle lane policies. Unfortunately it is increasingly clear that the rise in cycling was being propped up by people using bikes to exercise during lockdown and when lockdown ended so did the growth in cycling as life returned to normality. It was particularly pronounced in London as so much of the weekday commuting cycling stopped as people did not return to offices (especially the MAMIL types who invariably were in jobs that afforded them the ability to work from home more and had made up a large proportion of weekday cyclists pre-lockdown). Of course all of this is completely understandable but much of the new cycling infrastructure was built to facilitate weekday commuting and so was not being used a much as it should and could have been and led to massive increase in congestion for other vehicle types.

This Labour councillor from Hackney is well worth a follow - one of the only Labour councillors on the planet not drinking the LTN is great Kool-Aid and he has been one the key voices challenging TFL on their cycling numbers. Here he tweets data from TFL statisticians that was presented to a TFL board meeting this week that shows the trends I have been discussing above (and remember, the chart is presenting % change and the majority of the overall cycling over the course of the year is well below 2019 levels). I have pasted the image from his tweet so you can see the TFL numbers.

[goldilocks]

I assume without looking that its the Vincent Stops tweet where he notes that cycling is returning almost to pre pandemic levels weekdays, whilst ignoring against a backdrop of tube / bus and even still road use being lower than pre pandemic.

Doesn't that mean that if cycling is holding up mostly above pre pandemic levels, but all other modes are down, then in reality cycling has increased as the figures represent a smaller group of people actually needing to travel to work every day.

[Rockets]

I would probably look and read the tweet properly.....

[goldilocks]

I have re looked at it

On average - even weekday cycling is around or only slightly below 2019 levels - and probably on average over the year, in line. So not an overall increase. Compared to driving, tube and bus it is up but obviously

fewer people are travelling overall.

Therefore ignoring weekend cycling (though this isn't necessarily all about 'going for a ride', lots could be travelling for leisure rather than the activity itself) cycling is broadly aligned with pre pandemic numbers but those counts are from a smaller pool of people who need to travel on weekdays.

By the same token of 'was the cycling investment worth it'? it seems that road use isn't up to pre pandemic levels, so shall we remove more of those? It seems drivers aren't using them!

[heartblock]

Data shows that cycling increased very gently over the last 10 years in London - there was the effect of winning cycling medals and international competitions plus a push for health - many also found cycling a better option than the crowded bus in the morning. If you adjust for this underlying increase, there was an upwards blip over the hot Summer lockdown when we were working from home but encouraged to exercise, now we are back to the underlying slow increase.

The only thing I have noticed on ED Grove is children and adults cycling on the pavement as I try to walk to HH station in the morning - along with scooters both electric and non-electric.

It may be safer for me to walk in the road as the traffic is stationary for much of my journey.

Now the HTNs are to be made permanent, I wonder if we can change the conversation about how we make the traffic safer, with less pollution on the most densely populated roads in Dulwich and the main school roads in Dulwich, that currently have the worst pollution in the area.

[Rockets]

Goldilocks - this is the point many people are making but I am glad you acknowledge that cycling is struggling to reach pre-pandemic levels.

If you spend two years closing roads, installing new cycle lanes and building infrastructure to support modal shift yet the numbers of people cycling is lower than it was in 2019 then people will, understandably, question whether it has all been worth it, especially given the negative impact on other road users (especially other forms of public transport like buses).

Will Norman et al touted a 10x increase in cycling in 2020..where has it gone? Did it ever really exist or has it all evaporated when lockdown ended?

I suspect very soon there will have to be a pragmatic discussion on what's going wrong with these grand plans as it's clear it hasn't delivered what was intended.

[Metallic]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> I would probably look and read the tweet

> properly.....

BOOM

[goldilocks]

How much do you think has been spent on roads in the same period? Are we questioning whether they are a good investment?

Again - if cycling is close to pre pandemic levels in a pandemic when far fewer people have been needing to travel throughout the period, then how is this a decline in the round?

[DulvilleRes]

In the absence of a huge amount of data - it would be good to find it - my view is that cycling is exponentially up across the Borough, especially since lockdown. This is based on having cycled the route into Central London ( either via Walworth Road, or up the back via Brixton Road/ Kennington) most days. I've done this route in various iterations most of my life, and the sea change in the numbers cycling is extraordinary, as well as the range of people doing it.

What is striking is the explosion in the types of bike people use - a lot of families using electric assisted bikes to get their kids to school, and also older people who for whatever reason could do with a bit of assistance. It is true to say there is a mini mountain range between Dulwich and routes to the West End/ City, but it can be avoided entirely by going via Herne Hill/ Brixton Road.

For me a vision of the future is a reduction of traffic on all streets, which then becomes a self fulfilling prophesy - the more car free they become, the more appealing it is to cycle, and the faster the buses and essential traffic will go. For that to happen, people have to get out of their cars for private journeys.

[Rockets]

goldilocks Wrote:

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

> How much do you think has been spent on roads in

> the same period? Are we questioning whether they

> are a good investment?

>

> Again - if cycling is close to pre pandemic levels

> in a pandemic when far fewer people have been

> needing to travel throughout the period, then how

> is this a decline in the round?

No we are questioning whether the negative fallout associated with the installation of such measures is worth for seemingly no gain (or even a loss). Surely if you don't actually deliver more cyclists then the measures have been a failure - that's common-sense isn't it?

Also I am questioning whether the pro-LTN protagonists were wise to herald the "10x" increase in cycling during the pandemic as proof that the interventions were working and were a success - as it seems to have been very short-lived and not anything to do with the interventions at all.

On your second point, again, read the tweet - look at the second set of TFL slides he posted. Other modes of travel are increasing significantly - there is also a thought that increases in cycling during the pandemic could have been from people who use public transport who were not confident to travel on it and now their confidence is returning so they are abandoning bike travel.

Bottom-line is, according to TFL's own data, cycling has declined to below pre-pandemic levels across London - despite all of the modal shift interventions within the city. Something clearly is not working.

[exdulwicher]

Alternatively, try reading the full report here:

https://board.tfl.gov.uk/documents/s17060/Travel%20in%20London%2014%20Overview.pdf

Page 3 & 4.

Look at the whole paragraph, not the one section highlighted by people opposed to cycle lanes.

Cycling illustrates this duality, with figure 2 showing data from limited cycle counters around central and inner London. The standout feature is the relative increase in weekend cycling ? typically doubling relative to pre-pandemic, although with large variation, emphasising the increase in ?leisure? cycling. Weekday cycling shows a

different picture, typically close to pre-pandemic levels. However, this reflects a large-scale reduction in commuter cycling, in line with other modes, making this relative resilience especially noteworthy.

Firstly, it's data from a limited number of cycle counters around central and inner London - they're the vertical digital things you can see alongside some (but certainly not all) of the CSHs, ticking up as cyclists pass.

Weekday cycling reflects a large-scale reduction in commuter cycling, in line with other modes, making this relative resilience especially noteworthy

Quite astonishingly, in the middle of a pandemic where people have been told to WFH, cycle commuting into a central London office is down. Who'd have thought it?! Same with those trains and buses running at 20% capacity... It's worth noting that cycle hire comment too:

Excepting the strict lockdown periods, Santander Cycles (which mostly serve central and some parts of inner London) enjoyed record patronage during the pandemic and continues to see patronage above pre-pandemic levels. This is especially remarkable given overall reduced activity levels and demonstrates the utility of cycle hire for travel around central London under pandemic conditions.

You can continue to cherry pick data and find certain sentences that back up what you want to hear but it's somewhat at odds with your continued call for data, data, data from everywhere. And as it mentions, it's data from cycle counters in central London, it's got nothing to do with Dulwich. All it really shows is that there's less weekday cycling in central London which given the office closures and other restrictions of Covid isn't really earth shattering news requiring the immediate removal of all cycle lanes.

Added to which, the data since March 2020 is all over the place and will likely take another couple of years to even out.

[heartblock]

So during lockdown and after HTNs there is 2000 more cars a day on EDG - but that is nothing to do with HTNs...but the small increase over Summer lockdown of cyclists is.

Do make up your minds....

[eastdulwichhenry]

I received an update on plans from the council today, and I opened it with some trepidation, thinking they might decide to just scrap the whole LTN based on the noisy objections like those we see here, reversing the gains we've made in ease of walking and cycling on Melbourne Grove/Calton Avenue, but apparently it's even better news than that, they've decided not to proceed with the Melbourne Grove south reopening. If I understood correctly, that's great news. Reopening that route as a LL to EDG rat-run would have reversed some of the fantastic gains that we've made due to the LTN - in particular the ability to go from ED station to the library along a largely traffic-free route.

[ab29]

LTN brought nothing but more pollution, dirt and noise for people living on the main roads and has made air pollution worst by creating miles of idling traffic. It is also one of the most socially unjust scheme ever invented.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Rockets Wrote:

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

> cycling

> is struggling to reach pre-pandemic levels.

Not sure if you've noticed mate but commuting is a fraction of pre-pandemic levels. Presumably you don't work in the City or West End - you'd have spotted it's much quieter than January 2021.

Perhaps this blind spot reflects the retired, 2.4 cars demographic of OneDulwich and the mansions on Dulwich Village. Who knows...?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/london-back-to-office-wfh-covid-pandemic-b953861.html

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

ab29 wrote:

> It is also one of the most

> socially unjust scheme ever invented.

Gonna go out on a limb and suggest that maybe the Great Leap Forward or Irish Potato Famine was worse.

[Rockets]

Not sure if you noticed but many (Will Norman, LCC, Peter Walker) were claiming a huge rise in cycling in 2020 on the back of the LTNs and other modal shift measures. Their grandstanding may have been premature as the figures nose-dived to below pre-pandemic levels which I am happy you are all finally acknowledging ;-).

And your assumption that commuting is a fraction of what it was doesn't actually stand up to any scrutiny does it? It's hardly a fraction.....even the article you link to claims it is significantly more than a fraction....do you actually bother to read the whole article of things you post?

Anyway, the bottom line is I think the measures have not had anywhere near the impact that people had hoped and a low single digit percentage gain in cycling numbers is all any set of measures will ever deliver and the collateral damage that goes with it does not justify it (and this applies as much to Dulwich as other parts of London). Can you persuade me that the "gains" are worth the damage being done by the measures? Even the 10x gains heralded by the usual suspects but a few months ago have just gone in a matter of months (maybe you'll try to claim these were commuters who stopped commuting midway through the pandemic....).

Yes there might be a few more kids cycling to JAGs and DPL every day and a few more cargo bikes around but it doesn't come close to the numbers needed for proper modal shift to be happening.

P.S. You're not my mate.....just so we're clear about that I am quite discerning about my friendship group and your aggressive approach on here suggests you wouldn't qualify...;-)

[legalalien]

Indeed, here?s the final report for those who haven?t seen it https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/documents/s103597/Report%20Determination%20of%20Objections%20Dulwich%20Streetspace%20Review.pdf

Melbourne South closure being retained under a temporary traffic order ( under officer delegated power), apparently due to a concern that reopening would dump more traffic on East Dulwich Grove. ( I assume that?s an order under section 14 of the Act, can?t really see how that?s justified under the statutory wording but let?s wait and see the order. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/14). Not letting regulatory requirements get in the way of a good scheme seems to have been something of a theme so far.

Apparently Sept data shows a continued reduction in traffic on boundary roads?

Updated equalities assessment suggests ?that the groups who are car dependent because of their protected characteristic should be assisted by the Council to mitigate any disadvantages they may suffer. Officers are cognisant of these groups, however on balance the benefits of the Dulwich Streetspace schemes outweigh the harm that these may cause.?

First time I?ve seen rain gardens mentioned - I reckon susdrains are coming our way.

eastdulwichhenry Wrote:

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

> I received an update on plans from the council

> today, and I opened it with some trepidation,

> thinking they might decide to just scrap the whole

> LTN based on the noisy objections like those we

> see here, reversing the gains we've made in ease

> of walking and cycling on Melbourne Grove/Calton

> Avenue, but apparently it's even better news than

> that, they've decided not to proceed with the

> Melbourne Grove south reopening. If I understood

> correctly, that's great news. Reopening that route

> as a LL to EDG rat-run would have reversed some of

> the fantastic gains that we've made due to the LTN

> - in particular the ability to go from ED station

> to the library along a largely traffic-free route.

[DulvilleRes]

When a Conservative minister is saying owning a car is outdated 20th-century thinking, you know the writing is ultimately on the wall for the mindset of being able to drive anywhere in our own vehicle that many of us grew up with.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10298487/Owning-car-outdated-20th-century-thinking-transport-minister-Trudy-Harrison-says.html

Fewer private car journeys is the way to reduce traffic on all streets, coupled with options such as car pools, public transport and walking/cycling, and I would have thought this is what the anti-LTN lobby should be campaigning for.

[andrewc]

Plus the rise and rise of the e-bike. All kinds of people seem to like them. Just sayin.