LTN Discussion

[Rockets]

Malumbu - do you actual read the posts before you respond with your musings? The government's response was in response to people signing a petition complaining to the govt about the LTNs and asking them to initiate an independent review.

They then responded saying that have appointed UoW to manage an independent evaluation of the impact of the LTNS....to which people have, quite rightly stated that Rachel Aldred and UoW don't tick many boxes on "independent".

The argument is hardly silly - it's a serious question about how independent the evaluation is.

We have stated that we think the evaluation is flawed (in terms of data collection and the presumptions made by UoW that impact the outcomes) and the authors of the report cannot claim to be independent. In light of this maybe you would care to counter with your argument as to why you think the data is robust and the evaluation credible - it's about time you actually debated something rather than just name-calling ;-).

[Rockets]

Interesting use of words by Will Norman in one of his celebratory tweets:

Firstly he is retweeting what looks like a sponsored byline article by a pollution monitoring company called Vortex and his headline data is from claims made by that company about monitoring done by one of its sister companies for Lewisham council

The use of the word cut is important as it implies the journeys are no longer made but when you read the text itself it paints a different picture:

Think about the reduction in traffic volume; it’s extraordinary. Our sister company Videalert provided Lewisham Council with intelligent CCTV technology to control vehicles entering the zone. Any offences committed were conducted in a post-implementation analysis.

After analysing data on traffic patterns outside individual schools, they found that 96,000 fewer car trips were taken outside of just one school in a year and reduced 862,500 vehicle movements.

So suggesting they were cut implies the journeys are no longer made but actually the piece was stating that, because they had closed the road 96,000 fewer cars passed the school - and of course that is great news for the school but not so great news is those journeys were not cut - if they were re-routed then the cut claim is disingenuous at best.

Also, re-tweeting what appears to be a sponsored or placed article is not best practice by Will - it's kind of a continuation of trying to control the narrative and hope that people don't scratch beneath the surface and only read the headline.

[malumbu]

Cheers Rocks, if you had read my post properly you would see it was about DfT and Aldred.

I've reworded it to make it even easier to comprehend.

You are now speculating that DfT is biased by appointing a (your words) non-independent academic. Government goes through high levels of scrutiny, select committees, the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee as well as MPs as a whole. You may wish to write to the Transport Secretary or lobby your MP to do similar. I'd be interested in the DfT response but I expect that it would be along the lines of they are very rigorous in awarding contracts and this goes through a comprehensive assessment process in terms of value for money, the competence of the favoured contractor and the political implications.

As such I expect your argument may be fairly spurious.

[exdulwicher]

Malumbu - do you actual read the posts before you respond with your musings? The government's response was in response to people signing a petition complaining to the govt about the LTNs and asking them to initiate an independent review.

 

You're aware that the research/evaluation was already being conducted, yes? It's got nothing to do with the petition.

The appointment was made to the most expert organisation in the field of active travel.

TfL / DfT opened up a tender for research into LTNs. UoW (alongside other universities and probably a couple of private sector organisations) will have submitted bids based on their expertise. A winner was chosen. That happened before the petition.

Besides which it's not "just" Rachel Aldred, there's a team of very highly regarded researchers at UoW with multiple peer-reviewed papers to their names, also backed up now by Active Travel England. I suppose they're biased too cos Chris Boardman is National Active Travel Commissioner, that'll be the next claim won't it?

Yes, she was an elected Trustee of London Cycling Campaign between 2012 and 2018. That's an oversight and expert advice role, not a campaigning one. From the LCC website:

LCC’s ten-strong Board of Trustees review our work and check the charity is in good shape. They ensure the CEO and staff team are working in the most effective way towards our campaigning and strategic goals. Trustees have ultimate responsibility for making sure LCC meets our legal obligations – ensuring our finances are well-managed, our governance structures are functioning well and overseeing the charity’s internal democracy.

And she's not been a Trustee for 5 years.

Most academic experts sit on various boards, committees, charities, trusts etc as part of their role. They're expert enough to spot crap schemes, to understand the data and advise non-experts.

I can see why the conspiracy theorists have jumped onto this one - it kind of fits neatly in the middle of climate denial and Covid/vaccines as a "control method" for the population. All of this is conspiracy playbook 101.

Don't like the research? Conduct ad-hominem attacks on the individuals concerned, claim they're biased. You've done this several times with Rachel Aldred, Peter Walker and Cllr Rose. And now with Will Norman.

And it works both ways with anyone who's in favour of general car reduction measures:

Pro-LTN + owns a car = y0ur a Ma$$ivE hyp0criTE! Sell Your cAr NOW!

Pro-LTN + does not own a car = a tofu-bothering eco hippy who can't possibly understand what life is like for those who NEED cars.

Claim that any positive data is faked, biased, flawed, collected over the wrong period of time, collected in the wrong place, collected for too long or not long enough, manipulated, out of date... Any negative data however, even if it's a subset of some otherwise positive data, is an immediate rock-solid reason to scrap everything (in climate denial and transport planning terms it's called Policy Perfectionism - the idea that you should wait until there is a scheme that receives 100% universal approval from everyone and works perfectly. Since no such scheme can ever exist, it's basically kicking the can down the road).

The fact is, it's the only place left for you to go to. The idea that somewhere there's an elite team of All Powerful Cyclists who have infiltrated Southwark (who are both too incompetent to run a bath while also conducting a vast data manipulation scam on the side).

Cherry pick some data, engage in some whataboutism (what about China / wood burning stoves / aviation...), state that we don't need to do anything now because at some indeterminate point in the future, an as yet undetermined "technology" will fix everything. We can keep driving because "soon" we'll all have electric cars and self-driving cars so we don't need to do anything now. It's all classic conspiracy theory stuff. Deny the data, rubbish the academics. There are climate denial, flat earth and anti-vax videos all over the internet doing exactly that.

By all means though if you can find some experts to conduct research into LTNs and produce a document like the recent LTN report:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/13Nsm_GFdH6CpIpPpOZ7hbhLZScgqCAP7ZGI0xi4qDqA/edit

which was also followed up with some FAQs:

https://www.wearepossible.org/latest-news/your-ltn-questions

then go for it. Note of course that the document above references all the data, including what could and couldn't be used and why - one of the main points coming from it was the need for better data collection all round (although Southwark's was included) so naturally we'd expect to see similar in your report. You'd best reference the hundreds of other reports from around the world on similar schemes which all report similar outcomes, maybe they're ALL lying? The cyclists have got to them too!

I get that there are legitimate concerns - there always are with pretty much any transport scheme, building project etc. But don't be surprised to find that 500 people submitting a copy/paste diatribe against the supposed injustices of a scheme is not 500 arguments as to why it shouldn't happen, it's one argument put forward 500 times.

[Rockets]

Ex- you forgot to accuse me of being a right-wing, covid denier!!! ;-)

Let me clarify something for you: Rachel Aldred was not just a trustee of LCC but also the chair of their policy forum - so she had direct input on LCC policies and lobbying efforts that LCC conducted - that was anything but an oversight role. And don't get me started on Chris Boardman - he runs a company that makes bikes and has been accused of favouring bikes in his role as Active Travel Commissioner - imagine the uproar if someone from a car manufacturer was put in charge as Roads Commissioner.....;-)

At the end of the day Rachel Aldred is a cycling lobbyist and has spent her career lobbying for cycling which doesn't make her independent - you know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

Makes you think doesn't it...but let's be honest people seem to develop a bit of blind spot when something they want and support gets questioned and that's what all of the pro-LTN lobby are doing - turning a blind eye because it suits their agenda. There's more than enough evidence to show that data, reports and output are fundamentally flawed and being manipulated - if you don't care - good for you - just don't expect any sympathy when it happens to something you do care about.

The issue remains that there are people who care and are concerned about what is happening and are trying to voice their opinions but have been ignored and depositioned since the outset. The latest attempt to quell any opposition is to accuse people of being right-wing, Covid deniers etc...seemingly the go-to place when people have exhausted every other means of silencing opinions they don't like to hear.

And Malumbu - you may think that my argument is spurious but at least I have an argument - you're displaying some distinctly troll-like tendencies! Have you ever answered a question anyone has asked you on the forum? If you're here to debate then go ahead if not maybe the lounge is more your natural hunting ground - maybe time to revisit the self-imposed Lounge quarantine! ;-)

[malumbu]

I'm simply suggesting that you complain to DfT - what's troll like about that? Sounds like good advice to me. You can post similar arguments until the cows come home here but why not use your rights as a citizen to challenge the government?

I do this sort of thing all the time, my current campaign is that Gary Lineker should be our next prime minister, Obviously that is a facetious thought, but out national broadcaster does need to be challenged, this is the same national broadcaster that had no problems with Clarkson posting some quite rabid stuff whilst still employed by them. Obviously a different issue but just giving an indication of what I do when I am all het up about something.

I posted a FOI I got from Southwark once about parking enforcement in Peckham.

[heartblock]

The 'Active Travel Academy' at Westminster University is funded by grants from organisations promoting LTNs, cycling, cargo-bikes and 'active travel' - the Academy is headed up by Prof. Aldred.

Maybe we should ask the Vegan Society to investigate if a vegan diet is healthy and the Meat Marketing Board if a diet that includes meat is healthy?

Maybe Boris Johnson should investigate Party-gate and write the report?

[Rockets]

Good point well made!

And in those circumstances if you are a vegan, a meat lover or a Tory you’d probably be overjoyed with the results and see no need for further scrutiny of the process or the people running it…..

Hurrah, they say, we have the results we were looking for and this validates our personal viewpoint….how dare they question the independence of the process……I will now place my head back into the sand....;-)

[Rockets]

And Ex- one of the reasons there is little point me doing the analysis of the data is that I have skin in the game, I have a publicly stated position on my views on what I would be assessing and reviewing....which takes us back to why Aldred should be nowhere near the "independent" evaluation - she has a well documented stated position on the very thing she is being paid to review. That's called a vested interest - surely even you can acknowledge that?

[DuncanW]

All Powerful Cyclists....!! I'm in, or is it invite only - I'm open to it either way.

All this pillorying of those who have done the research, have access and the tools to understand the data, and the elected responsibility.... and this group includes:

The local council (comfortably relelected in the midst of all this last year

The Mayor of London (again, comfortably relected in 2021)

Transport for London

Central Govt who initiated and funded much of this

Mainstream newspaper correspondents

Academics at mainstream universities - who central Govt appoint to review the LTNs

And Malumbu

It just makes me wonder, if we were all living 500 years ago what some of you would have made of the likes of Copernicus and Magellan.

[Spartacus]

All Powerful Cyclists....!! I'm in, or is it invite only - I'm open to it either way.

 

You need to roll up one trouser leg, put on a cycle clip and give the sacred hand signal only used towards motorists 🖕

Then mutter the secret password phrase "everyone can cycle" and you're in 😅

[exdulwicher]

And Ex- one of the reasons there is little point me doing the analysis of the data is that I have skin in the game, I have a publicly stated position on my views on what I would be assessing and reviewing....which takes us back to why Aldred should be nowhere near the "independent" evaluation - she has a well documented stated position on the very thing she is being paid to review. That's called a vested interest - surely even you can acknowledge that?

 

You were bigging up your own scientific credentials and abilities the other day, are you now saying that you can't be trusted to run a statistical analysis?!

Research experts know that bias can find its way into any research program – it’s naive to think that any research could be 100 percent free from it. What you're basically doing is accusing the research team of confirmation bias - the sort of belief in this case (correct me if I'm wrong) that if it's anti-car / pro-bicycle, it MUST be good, it simply cannot be any other way and therefore we must publish that.

I'd position that the other way around. If they are such vocal active travel campaigners, surely they want the best scheme possible, one that delivers genuine benefits? If it doesn't work because it's caused gridlock on surrounding roads or pollution has gone up or traffic has increased or cycling has decreased, then it's a shit scheme and needs to be called out on that. Dear Council, thanks for the data, it shows the scheme has failed on X, Y and Z, we recommend a complete rethink.

But the data, not just from Southwark but other councils as well is, broadly, pretty positive. This is not exactly a surprise, it's been known for years that this stuff works it's just there's been very limited political will to do anything about it.

A few minor bits that require further research, better data, longer study or a few tweaks (like the alteration of timings that Southwark did a while ago) because it's not just a single point in time, it's an evolution - people gradually change behaviour, most car owners can't simply get rid of their car the second a plant pot goes in, demographics alter subtly over long periods of time...

There are definitely issues over some of the data - that got called out in the original report so they're not trying to hide anything. It details the statistical analysis that was done on it all, removing each set in turn and conducting regression analysis to determine outliers. Sort of related that's why you can't just see the raw data NOW immediately because it's completely meaningless without the broader context. The reports they've done detail the steps taken to avoid bias; there's a research plan, a statement of the hypothesis and an evaluation of that, the topics and data categories are clearly outlined, the results are shown and the paper is open to peer-review. The authors (and their credentials) clearly listed. Never seen any of that from any OneDulwich publication yet strangely you never accuse them of bias... Interesting...

But anyway, if you have concerns over the bias of UoW and the research team, I suggest you take it up with the university. You're making some fairly serious claims amounting to professional misconduct so surely, as a concerned citizen, you want that addressed? Best let TfL know as well so they can appoint a truly independent expert. Someone who has never been involved with any LTN in any capacity anywhere yet knows all about them.

 

All Powerful Cyclists....!! I'm in, or is it invite only - I'm open to it either way.

 

You need to roll up one trouser leg, put on a cycle clip and give the sacred hand signal only used towards motorists 🖕

 

Yes but where do I collect my cheque from this well-funded team of militant cyclists?!

Is that why they're all in such a rush, hurtling through red lights to deliver the paychecks to the next paid shill researcher or Councillor?

Wow, I'm missing out!

Back in a bit, just off to apply to UoW...

[DuncanW]

she has a well documented stated position on the very thing she is being paid to review. That's called a vested interest - surely even you can acknowledge that?

 

But having a stated position and a vested interest are absolutely not one and the same thing.

vested interest

/ˌvɛstɪd ˈɪntrɛst/

noun

1.a personal reason for involvement in an undertaking or situation, especially an expectation of financial or other gain.

I have a stated position that the earth is round, but I don't have any vested interest in that.

[Rockets]

Ex- I have zero scientific credentials but if I can see the flaws in the data and collection methods then surely the professionals can as well!

You are an industry specialist, what are your thoughts on the under 10kph recording issues and when you see monitoring strips in the Dulwich area do you think their positioning is giving an accurate picture given many of their placements near junctions.

DuncanW - what you describe is exactly why Aldred has a vested interest/conflict of interest. In fact, and I am happy to be corrected, but in some reports Aldred has published she cites her involvement on the LCC policy forum in the potential conflicts of interest section.

[DuncanW]

Again... conflict of interest is not the same as vested interest - as in potential for personal gain or advancement.

That's quite an accusation, and left uncorrected undermines your argument imho

[Rockets]

DuncanW - you're getting into semantics and it doesn't undermine my argument at all...if you are a cycle lobbyist and you get a job assessing the impact of measures that benefit cycling you have a vested interest (as you have previously lobbied for measures that benefit cycling) and a conflict of interest (because you have held a position within a cycle lobby).

Pretty clear to me.

[DuncanW]

Semantics - the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning

Yes, that's exactly what I am doing.

[Rockets]

DuncanW - you're getting into semantics and it doesn't undermine my argument at all...if you are a cycle lobbyist and you get a job assessing the impact of measures that benefit cycling you have a vested interest (as you have previously lobbied for measures that benefit cycling) and a conflict of interest (because you have held a position within a cycle lobby).

Pretty clear to me.

 

P.S. You said: I have a stated position that the earth is round, but I don't have any vested interest in that.

But you do if you are asked to assess if it is round or not don't you?

[legalalien]

Info online for next week’s south multi ward forum with (v limited) info about grant applicants. Interesting to speculate what the various CGS ones are for, particularly “Save our pedestrians from attack”. “Herne Hill Shady Streets” has a ring to it (assume is about trees rather than something more sinister).

Am sure there will be divergent views on the application for neighbourhood funding and the devolved highways budget.

https://moderngov.southwark.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?MId=7511&x=1

[first mate]

Thanks legal.

I see The Friends of Dulwich Square got £3000.. for what, I wonder?

Cannot believe the cost of cycle hangars. £5000 for a hangar in Friern Road.

[heartblock]

Every time I say the traffic has increased on East Dulwich Grove, I’m pointed to the ATC counts on ED Grove Central .... which is often congested with slow, idling traffic - that the traffic has reduced.

Although strangely increased by 25% at the other end.

I know this is incorrect as I see, smell and hear it.

So why do the ATCs that Southwark have used not count the traffic I see?

Even more chilling is that the manufacturers of the ATCs now admit that Councils have ACTIVELY removed slow moving traffic data. So undercounting and removal of data.

In the Times today, sadly a paywall, but I’m sure someone can take a screenshot.

This is the data that was used to ‘prove’ that LTNs do not increase traffic on major resedential roads outside of LTNs.

[Penguin68]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/flaw-in-roadside-counters-for-low-traffic-schemes-j6wbwvzjn

This might work. Apologies if not.

[Rockets]

Have you seen how close the one on Lordship Lane is approaching the Goose Green roundabout, that will be recording very little?

[heartblock]

‘The Times approached eight inner London councils that introduced LTNs during the pandemic to ask what settings they had used on their counters, whether they had been adjusted after their schemes were implemented and whether they were confident in the accuracy of their data, but none of them answered. Almost all of the councils have presented their LTNs as a success, claiming traffic reductions even on some boundary roads‘

In one case undercounting by around 1500 cars in a 12 hr period on a boundary rd.

[heartblock]

‘ Edited March 11, 2023 by heartblock