LTN Discussion

[malumbu]

Well that was sneaky by the Torygraph to selectively quote from the Mayor.  Mr Khan should have just said that these things take time to bed in and it fits in with his desire to improve air quality.  Below the belt blaming the last Mayor when he was the PM.  And not even right as it was smiley boy, Mick Jones' from the Clash cousin, although I expect Mr Johnson was pretty gung ho about these sorts of things.

Anyway as try to only post on a positive note as the Mayor pointed out some LTNs are well designed and are delivering successful outcomes.  Perhaps next time the Torygraph could lead on this.

[Rockets]

2 hours ago, malumbu said:

Anyway as try to only post on a positive note as the Mayor pointed out some LTNs are well designed and are delivering successful outcomes.  Perhaps next time the Torygraph could lead on this.

Isn't that the Guardian's role!? 😉

[Spartacus]

Saw this on twitter and had to laugh 

Even funnier when you read other reviews on sites like amazon. Obviously he has spare time on his hands which could be used to solve knife crime, poverty and world peace 😀

Joking aside he seems ro be working on his next book by claiming he is reducing this pea souper fug we all see in London every day 😅

[malumbu]

The last Mayor promised us air as clean as an alpine meadow, it was a jolly good article and I'd love to hear your views.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/0/forget-saharan-dust-londons-air-can-pure-alps/

And boy could he write.  It's a shame that Mr Khan is not a product of the private school/elite upbringing. 

 

[Rockets]

I am still laughing heartily after reading this tweet from Peter Walker.....somewhat hypocritical from someone who has been dining out for years on non-peer reviewed LTN and active travel reports written by people who have a vested-interest......glass houses and all that....

 

 

[Rockets]

….which isn’t get it’s normal “exclusive” treatment from the likes of Peter Walker….can anyone guess why….?

 

 

The research is very interesting as it was conducted in Lambeth around their 4 LTNs, which interestingly are all in the northern half of the borough and close to tubes and have good transport links. Below are the pre-adjusted figures for Inside the LTNs, Near the LTNs (within 200 metres) and Control area (beyond 200m).

 

 

Table 2.Average daily driving time, pre- and post-LTN implementation: main analysis

	Inside the LTNs	Near the LTNs	Control area
No. cars and vans in analysis, pre/post	1700 / 2025	1352 / 1658	5523 / 6598
Mean daily km (SE), pre	20.3 (0.3)	20.3 (0.4)	20.4 (0.2)
Mean daily km (SE), post	19.6 (0.3)	20.7 (0.4)	21.0 (0.2)
Change in km (SE), post minus pre	-0.7 (0.5)	0.3 (0.5)	0.6 (0.3)
Difference-in-differences change in km (95% CI), relative to the control area	-1.3 (-2.4, -0.3)	-0.3 (-1.4, 0.9)
p-value for difference-in-differences effect	p=0.01	p=0.64

 

So it seems all those headlines we saw from the usual pro-LTN suspects about LTNs not leading to a rise in traffic outside the LTNs may have been incorrect.

 

I do hope Ms Alfred’s ATA will do the same research in Dulwich as I think the numbers would be quite revealing as our LTNs are much further south and further away from tubes and gold transport links when compared to Lambeth’s?

 

Could this be the why Sadiq is beginning to distance himself from LTNs (ahead of next May’s mayoral election) as the truth is starting to creep out? Telling that none of the usual suspects tried to spin this story in support of LTNs.

 

(Admin note - this post isn't directly related to ED so moved to the LTN Discussion topic)

[exdulwicher]

16 hours ago, Rockets said:

….which isn’t get it’s normal “exclusive” treatment from the likes of Peter Walker….can anyone guess why….?

He's doing more political stuff at the moment, I think he was over in Washington on the recent Sunak / Biden meeting which (I'm just guessing here) is probably of more interest to more people than a couple of LTNs in Dulwich...

16 hours ago, Rockets said:

So it seems all those headlines we saw from the usual pro-LTN suspects about LTNs not leading to a rise in traffic outside the LTNs may have been incorrect.

This is fascinating on a number of levels. Firstly it's the one Aldred / Westminster study you haven't immediately panned as being biased, flawed, manipulated, paid for by Big Cycling... and I suspect that's because you think it's negative towards LTNs. Interesting how any study that's positive about them immediately gets slated but anything negative is held up as the epitome of perfect research...

16 hours ago, Rockets said:

Could this be the why Sadiq is beginning to distance himself from LTNs (ahead of next May’s mayoral election) as the truth is starting to creep out? Telling that none of the usual suspects tried to spin this story in support of LTNs.

More fascinating though is how you have completely misinterpreted it. It doesn't need "spinning in support of LTNs", it's already supportive! I'm honestly not sure here if you're deliberately trolling, trying to throw out a hook (I was in two minds as to whether or not to even bother replying...) or actually completely misreading, misinterpreting and misrepresenting everything about the study.

Read it in detail:
https://findingspress.org/article/75470-the-impact-of-2020-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-on-levels-of-car-van-driving-among-residents-findings-from-lambeth-london-uk

Have a look at the methodology and what it's actually looking at, why they selected those 4 LTNs (hint - you need CPZ data from the control zones) and understand what a "control" actually is in scientific terms. The graphs within it show that, pre-LTN, the control zones and what would later become LTNs were the same in terms of km driven. Then the LTNs were implemented in June - September 2020 and stayed there.

After that, there has been a gradual divergence in driving, with those INSIDE the LTN driving less and those OUTSIDE the LTN mostly continuing to drive the same or slightly more than before. This isn't to do with circuitous routes around them, it's residential data. Where you make it safer, more convenient etc to walk / cycle, people do that more. Where no such interventions are introduced, people stick with their cars. As an aside, that's all the more reason your constant "Dulwich has poor PTAL" (with the unwritten implication that therefore everyone relies on cars and we shouldn't do anything to discourage that) is so wrong - such a car-dominated place is the absolute perfect area to begin with introducing measures to reduce car-dependency! 

The study finishes by saying this: (my bold)

In summary, our findings suggest that residents in Lambeth started driving less once their area became an LTN. Notably, our outcome measure captures total past-year driving, including trips that the Lambeth LTNs are less likely to impact (e.g., inter-city trips, or travel outside London). It is plausible that for shorter and more local trips the relative decrease in LTN residents’ driving would be greater than the estimated 6% decrease in total past-year driving. This suggests that, in Lambeth and other similar inner-city areas, widespread roll-out of LTNs could make an important contribution towards reducing how much residents drive, and towards reducing local volumes of motor traffic.

It's not a huge wide-ranging study, it's slightly limited in where you can do it because you need CPZ data from pre- and post-Covid alongside the LTN data and it needs clearing up to remove (eg) someone who bought a brand new car in 2020 which is not subject to MOT for 3 years as well as people who have moved into or out of the area and so on but there's still a substantial set of data to give a statistically meaningful result. Once there's an LTN, people drive less because it's easier and more pleasant to walk, cycle, scoot etc. All the stuff about people within LTNs driving much further to get from one side to the other is not true; overall they are driving less, the vehicle mileage data shows that. From the paper:
This suggests that the decrease in driving observed inside the LTNs was not simply due to ‘residential self-selection’, whereby households that drove a lot had left the LTNs and/or households that drove less had moved in. Instead, it indicates that existing residents were changing their behaviour and starting to drive less.
This tallies with numerous other studies worldwide on similar such interventions. What the paper is saying is: LTNs work to reduce driving overall, we need more of them.

From here I guess we have several options. You can admit you've misread / misunderstood that paper. You can double down on your own interpretation of it. Or you can go back to the standard rhetoric that as Rachel Aldred is one of the authors it must be biased, flawed, manipulated, a pack of lies, too small a study to mean anything, it might have worked in Lambeth but it doesn't work in Southwark... 

[Earl Aelfheah]

There is an ever growing and consistent body of research showing that LTNs are effective. There is no peer reviewed research I have seen supporting the now debunked arguments of the car dependency brigade.

At this point if you still maintain that LTNs increase traffic or car use, or somehow reduce active travel, you have to dispute *all available evidence*, rely on anecdote, and / or believe in a vast conspiracy. Failing that, there is (the perhaps more honest) argument of ‘feck off, I like driving my car’.

Edited June 12, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[DuncanW]

1 hour ago, exdulwicher said:

From here I guess we have several options. You can admit you've misread / misunderstood that paper. You can double down on your own interpretation of it. Or you can go back to the standard rhetoric that as Rachel Aldred is one of the authors it must be biased, flawed, manipulated, a pack of lies, too small a study to mean anything, it might have worked in Lambeth but it doesn't work in Southwark... 

I'm gonna throw it out there that it's going to be the 'double-down' option...

[Spartacus]

How do they (the authors of research papers) work our kms travelled 

Are they monitoring all cars, or doing surveys ? 

If surveys then are they asking a wide enough group to get a valid mean average as using a small group can skew results in either direction. 

To be honest, in my view the figures show a marginal decrease in kms travelled within ltns (0.6 of a km daily) , but a jump outside of between 0.4 and 0.6 of a km outside.

It also shows an increase in traffic from pre ltn to post ltn in all areas and if you multiply the average daily change in kms by the volume of traffic you soon start to see why Rockets is correctly summarising that LTNs have increased traffic overall. 

What it also fails to show is traffic outside of the LTN boundaries (in our case on the south circular and Lordship Lane) by cleverly using the term near the ltn.

Let's be honest, ltns aren't the answer, we need proper shared use of roads by all with better driving/cycling/walking by all because until we get there it's always going to be group x vs group y ! 

[Earl Aelfheah]

Great that you’re commenting on the methodology and findings without actually reading the research. 

You can read about it (if you feel there is any point) here: https://findingspress.org/article/75470-the-impact-of-2020-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-on-levels-of-car-van-driving-among-residents-findings-from-lambeth-london-uk

alternatively you can continue to refute the methodology and findings based purely on the fact that you don’t like LTNs so they mustn’t work. Either way, I’m sure it’ll confirm exactly what you already believed.

Edited June 12, 2023 by Earl Aelfheah

[heartblock]

Well actually their statistical analysis and the narrative around the data manipulation is pretty poor. I spend a lot of the time grading qualitative and quantitative research in submitted thesis at this time every year, I’m not sure I would pass this study even at an undergraduate level. Some very simple mathematical application is deeply flawed and figures ‘massaged’ to give a bias to discount the null hypothesis.... which they fail to actually state.

They should go out of their way to prove LTNs do not xxxxxxxx and prove the null incorrect, instead it’s.... what we call a bit ‘floppy’. 

[legalalien]

Admittedly off topic on LTNs, but since we’re in the Lounge now - did anyone see this article in the Times about this less than brilliant expenditure on improving active travel? I mean, I guess it worked well from a bovine travel perspective…

Cambridge’s bike-friendly cattle grids fail to stop cows seeking pastures new.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/6739f324-0bbf-11ee-997e-7710367054a0?shareToken=976c0cb18b196c5a23ea5a044af1be69

[heartblock]

Ahh interesting  info Legal- sort of back to LTNs, I travelled back home by the no 37 bus today. I usually take a train to Herne Hill and walk. I haven't really taken the 37 around school/ rush hour ish at 4:00 -5:00 - at all post LTNs as I tend to WFH or travel back around 14:00 or after 19:00.

The bus was mainly women with children, women, some school kids, a few elderly and some people with disabilities - I would say racially diverse and probably more POC than the make-up inside LTNs in ED.

The bus journey once it hit EDG was hellish - compared to the occasional journey the same way, I can honestly say it crawled. The bus driver being kind was letting people off anywhere so they could walk - I guess they are used to this crazy bus journey.

Buses are so important to reducing car use and for people to travel in an efficient and 'green' way. Yes cycling and walking should be encouraged, but it's not a choice that can be made for some.

 

[mr.chicken]

I needed to take a trip to quite near Balham station recently to do some shopping at a very specific shop. There is a lovely network of LTNs, quiet roads with heavy traffic calming and bike paths nearly the entire way there. I also decided to give the Line bikes a go.

This made the trip very quick, easy and pleasant. The LTNs are game changing for getting around.

 

[heartblock]

So that’s great for you and bikes are a brilliant form of green transport and great for your health.

Quite how your experience of how great it is for you addressed the terrible toll on bus journeys for others I mentioned is something you appear to not address.

[mr.chicken]

3 hours ago, heartblock said:

Quite how your experience of how great it is for you addressed the terrible toll on bus journeys for others I mentioned is something you appear to not address.

I wasn't replying to you, so I wasn't attempting to address it. But since you bring it up, no bus ever got stuck in traffic before LTNs. Plus I recently was on a bus with a rather unpleasant passenger. I think it's important to note that incident happened AFTER the LTNs were introduced.  Also the LTN kicked my dog (or would have if I had a dog).

[first mate]

15 hours ago, heartblock said:

So that’s great for you and bikes are a brilliant form of green transport and great for your health.

Quite how your experience of how great it is for you addressed the terrible toll on bus journeys for others I mentioned is something you appear to not address.

I think that's because the aim is to deflect and deny. 

[malumbu]

I did a fairly scientific study on journey times in my commute.  It was around 30 mins by bike with say 15 mins of showering and changing.  The same journey to SW1 by overground and tube slightly longer with getting on for a mile walking.  But couldn't stand the crowds.  So a few times a year I'd get the bus - 185.  If I was on that before say 7.45 I'd miss congestion at sacred Heart on Camberwell New Road before the bus lane.  The cycle lanes introduced by the Oval didn't change journey time which stayed at 55 - 60 mins over the decades.  Congestion at Goose green, Champion Hill, Denmark Hill, and Camberwell Green was loosely consistent.

It was notable that most did shorter journeys by the bus quarter emptying at Denmark Hill and Vauxhall station.  It was fun watching the bikes on the bus lane which overall kept pace with the bus.  Most cyclists were experienced and I never saw confrontation.  Which aligned with my experience of bother with buses and taxis - maybe once or twice a year.

I got a seat almost every time, would read my paper, book, and later check a few emails etc.

The only annoyance was stopping at Camberwell to let buses even out, which I never understood.  Same sometimes on 63 at Peckham.  For another thread.

Back many years ago I drove on strike days.  But would never dream of doing that as my rat runs were closed or discovered, congestion charge, lack of cheap street parking and the enforcement of parking restrictions on the council estate that I had used to park.  All a good thing 

So what am I saying?  I didn't see any problems over the years, including the introduction of more restrictions on motor traffic and improving cycling infrastructure.  I'm not sure why others see things differently.  I'm talking big picture not the inconvenience on local journeys or new congestion points.

[Spartacus]

Whilst not ED centric, let's look at how ridiculous the pro cycling lobby have got with their "everyone can cycle" mantra 

Waterloo Bridge  where the bus and cycle lane which allowed buses to quickly traverse the bridge, has now been turned into a cycle only lane meaning buses regularly get stuck in traffic. 

To make it worse, the Aldwich one way system has been partially pedestrianised (the bit nearest the bridge) and the rest has become two ways. The net result is that buses are now taking upto ten minutes longer to get across the bridge and on to kingsway then before spewing out even more pollution as a result.

Now tell me that isn't a direct effect of trying to make cyclists King of the road! 

[Bic Basher]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

Whilst not ED centric, let's look at how ridiculous the pro cycling lobby have got with their "everyone can cycle" mantra 

Waterloo Bridge  where the bus and cycle lane which allowed buses to quickly traverse the bridge, has now been turned into a cycle only lane meaning buses regularly get stuck in traffic. 

To make it worse, the Aldwich one way system has been partially pedestrianised (the bit nearest the bridge) and the rest has become two ways. The net result is that buses are now taking upto ten minutes longer to get across the bridge and on to kingsway then before spewing out even more pollution as a result.

Now tell me that isn't a direct effect of trying to make cyclists King of the road! 

Waterloo Road outside the station has lost part of the bus lane to expand the pavement as well, sending cyclists into the main road, which makes all of this a mockery of trying to provide cycle provision.

I agree about the loss of the bus lane on Waterloo Bridge though, it makes what was a simple ride across the bridge on the 176 into an unnecessary slog when cyclists and buses could share the bus lane previously.

[mr.chicken]

1 hour ago, Spartacus said:

Waterloo Bridge  where the bus and cycle lane which allowed buses to quickly traverse the bridge, has now been turned into a cycle only lane meaning buses regularly get stuck in traffic.

Wait... so TFL installed those huge anti terrorist barriers on waterloo bridge to prevent cars being used as weapons  and buses then get stuck in car traffic and somehow bicycles are the problem?

 

[Spartacus]

No mr.chicken

The barriers were installed pre covid between the pavement and the road allowing buses to still use the bus lane.

TfL moved them out a while ago to seal off the cycle lane from the road and in doing so removed the bus lane.

That's the issue here, cyclists are now given priority over our mass transit devices, buses. How on earth does that make sense, even in your head? 

[heartblock]

It’s ok Mr deflecting Chicken is fine.

So let’s all stop complaining  about air and noise pollution on school/ resedential roads and the disruption to buses - the main form of transport for many women, mum’s, people with disabilities and the least well off in our communities.

As long as white, middle-class men can cycle freely then the planet is saved from its imminent demise due to fossil fuel use and greedy corporations.

LTNs and cyclists have saved the planet - hurrah!

 

[Spartacus]

Careful HB 

Assumptions like that are a small step from blaming cyclists for the rise in transgender artists performing for kids, after all cyclists in their ultra tight macho lycra have made great strives in normalising men wearing womens clothing although some will argue that's down to glam rock in the 70s 🤔😉😅

However let's stick to the facts that removing bus lanes to make cycle highways makes no sense as those that can't cycle face even more restricted choices.