LTN Discussion

[mr.chicken]

@heartblock, stop prevaricating. You have managed to overturn several decades of traffic engineering and urban planning research.

This is  simple question: where is your industry award for your massive breakthrough in this field? Or even a paper?

Your lack of willingness to provide anything at all is beginning, just beginning to make me think that it's your opinion vs decades of research. 🤔

[Rockets]

Mr Chicken - your responses make me think you don't actually ever want to discuss the topic in hand - you seem to be here just to distract and prevaricate. It seems now the Lounge Police can no longer patrol the area they have moved to a new tactic.....try to distract and derail discussions by throwing in nonsense.

 

Heartblock is right - it's a load of greenwashing that does very little to make a positive change, propagated and propped-up by a nepotistic system of lobbyists, researchers and media all of whom have strong ties to the cycle lobby. Bikes are clearly one part of the solution but not the only solution - a mistake those aforementioned groups need to realise.

[mr.chicken]

  On 17/08/2023 at 13:12, Rockets said:

Mr Chicken - your responses make me think you don't actually ever want to discuss the topic in hand

Expand  

Of course I do, but I would like the discussion to be grounded in reality rather than wild speculation.

@heartblock and you have claimed that reduced demand (the inverse of induced demand) does not happen. You are therefore claiming to have overturned decades of research the results of which have been successfully put into practice. This is a quite extraordinary claim and could overturn traffic planning worldwide, not to mention the local implementations like LTNs, etc if true.

I don't think it's "prevarication" (do you even know what that word means) to expect something more than a few scattered ad-hoc observations and a lot of strong feelings.

  On 17/08/2023 at 13:12, Rockets said:

Bikes are clearly one part of the solution but not the only solution

Expand  

Excellent, so an LTN is clearly part of the solution then. And I agree also that it's not the only part. The CPZ is part as well. But there are many more parts needed.

[exdulwicher]

  On 17/08/2023 at 13:12, Rockets said:

Heartblock is right - it's a load of greenwashing that does very little to make a positive change, propagated and propped-up by a nepotistic system of lobbyists, researchers and media all of whom have strong ties to the cycle lobby. Bikes are clearly one part of the solution but not the only solution - a mistake those aforementioned groups need to realise.

Expand  

Heartblock is, on this occasion, wrong and in defending him/her, you are also wrong. Induced and reduced demand are very well studied, not just in transport but in other areas of life as well - closely related to supply and demand. Unless you want to overturn centuries of economic policy as well in opining that that is also "pish"...?

This meta-study of hundreds of other transport studies from all over the world (and guess what, it *wasn't* written by Rachel Aldred!) clearly showed the most effective transport interventions for reducing car usage and encouraging/enabling public transport and active travel:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213624X22000281

There's another (longer read) one about effectiveness of carrot vs stick solutions but it reaches the same conclusions:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(22)00220-0/fulltext

And, as I know you're not going to trawl through such a complicated document when you've clearly decided that you can simply declare something as "pish" based on your opinion, here's a pretty picture to sum it up:

https://scx2.b-cdn.net/gfx/news/2022/the-most-effective-way-1.jpg

Edited August 17, 2023 by exdulwicher

[heartblock]

Mr. Chicken seems to be a seal-lion and not poultry.

'Lessons learnt' in both the articles that are available are not primary research, but conclusions based on meta-analysis (the third article appears to be a Childs drawing) and neither article is about LTNs but a variety of measures to reduce car use - many of them seemingly very sensible.  

Again do upload the primary, empirical research that proves LTNs reduce pollution and car-miles travelled.

As this is a health-intervention - as promoted by LTN advocates - then we should all expect the same research standard as a pharmaceutical drug or procedure. First do no harm. Second have a positive effect.

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by heartblock

[mr.chicken]

  On 17/08/2023 at 17:26, heartblock said:

Again do upload the primary, empirical research that proves LTNs reduce pollution and car-miles travelled.

Expand  

When you upload the primary, secondary or indeed any research at all proving induced/reduced demand is "pish", you might have a leg to stand on. In the mean time it seems you are attempting to hold other people to a much higher standard than you can attain.

 

[Rockets]

Ex- is this table from one of the links you shared saying that when they took those 12 interventions and put them to experts in the field this is how they assessed the potential to reduce car use in Lund? Do I take it the experts were applying local conditions and factors into the equation when making their assessment?

 

[mr.chicken]

  On 17/08/2023 at 17:45, Rockets said:

Ex- is this table from one of the links you shared saying that when they took those 12 interventions and put them to experts in the field this is how they assessed the potential to reduce car use in Lund? Do I take it the experts were applying local conditions and factors into the equation when making their assessment?

Expand  

What conclusions are you drawing from the table? You frequently do nothing but ask questions, which does a great deal to obscure your point.

[Rockets]

...says the person who does nothing but ask questions but never ever provides any answers....sigh....are you sure you aren't LTN Manatee or Boohoo under a different name? 😉 

 

I like to draw conclusions when I have heard from the person who presented it to us (and someone I respect because they work in the industry). I am not asking you because you are an engineer and clearly can't answer the question so maybe instead of throwing pointless responses into the thread to try and derail the conversation let the person I asked the question to answer it and we can go from there....of course, when we ask an engineering question feel free to jump in.

 

Edited August 17, 2023 by Rockets

[heartblock]

  On 17/08/2023 at 17:38, mr.chicken said:

When you upload the primary, secondary or indeed any research at all proving induced/reduced demand is "pish", you might have a leg to stand on. In the mean time it seems you are attempting to hold other people to a much higher standard than you can attain.

 

Expand  

I think the onus is on those applying the 'treatment' to prove that it does no harm, not on the patient who has been forced onto the treatment without consent.

You sound like an ancient quack blood-letting to do some good. 'go on, prove that this doesn't work' - Good try Dr. Sea-lion.

But....... as you asked so nicely, Prof. Alfred and Dr. Goodman's Longitudinal study into mini-Holland scheme, the 'poster-boy/girl' of every subsequent scheme found........ No evidence either way of change in car use associated with interventions 

So, that's one for you Dr. Sea-Lion. Do you want the link? I'm sure you have already read it though.. I bet you loved the bit where they talked about 'perceived' improvements in cycling. We love it when 'perception' replaces actual data... especially when applying leeches.

Edited August 17, 2023 by heartblock

[snowy]

Within a 12 month period between 2016 & 2017. 

[first mate]

  On 17/08/2023 at 20:18, heartblock said:

I think the onus is on those applying the 'treatment' to prove that it does no harm, not on the patient who has been forced onto the treatment without consent.

You sound like an ancient quack blood-letting to do some good. 'go on, prove that this doesn't work' - Good try Dr. Sea-lion.

But....... as you asked so nicely, Prof. Alfred and Dr. Goodman's Longitudinal study into mini-Holland scheme, the 'poster-boy/girl' of every subsequent scheme found........ No evidence either way of change in car use associated with interventions 

So, that's one for you Dr. Sea-Lion. Do you want the link? I'm sure you have already read it though.. I bet you loved the bit where they talked about 'perceived' improvements in cycling. We love it when 'perception' replaces actual data... especially when applying leeches.

Expand  

Thanks for this Heartblock, so useful to see the detail.

[Rockets]

  On 17/08/2023 at 20:18, heartblock said:

No evidence either way of change in car use associated with interventions 

Expand  

Hmmmmmm......Mr Chicken that one seems firmly back in your court now...we are waiting to see whether you have a return....

(No doubt some distraction technique incoming)

 

And look how Waltham Forest is being spun by a Councillor there in the New Statesman in response to the focus on then right now.

 

Edited August 18, 2023 by Rockets

[mr.chicken]

@heartblock and @Rockets you're doing a great Gish Gallop between the two of you, and I also wonder if you're coordinating with your personal attacks, because they all seem to arrive in bulk! Lots of shouting. Anyway on to the link. Well not link. Thing you didn't need to link but somehow decided that you not linking it was a criticism of me. Still trying to understand that one... 🤣

It also says this:

  Quote

For instance, there was no evidence that time spent in cars was increasing (due to congestion)

Expand  

So it just disproved all the negatives of the LTN about boundary roads and congestion that you've been talking about for the last few years, and especially all the "harm" you've been talking about just recently.

Additionally:

  Quote

• Interventions were associated with increased likelihood of any past-week cycling.

• Interventions were associated with increased past-week active travel time.

Expand  

Anyway now that it actually disproves all your complaints, I look forward to you nitpicking every minor flaw perceived or otherwise, but then manifestly not applying that to the particular conclusions you are fond of.

[Rockets]

Errmmmm Mr Chicken.......does the tweet I linked before not address one of those points on past-week cycling.....take a look....

 

 

[Penguin68]

To everyone

You are not going to change the minds of certain posters on these threads with facts, with debate, with anything much. They are hell-bent on obfuscation and challenge - perhaps best not to feed the trolls by responding? This does not stop actual debate (rather than simple nah-nah-di-nah-nah) challenge of course. There is much to consider without them, not the least the transportability of findings based in one locale type with another, outwith whether those findings can be challenged or endorsed in the locale in which the study took place.

And additionally the scientific and statistical method of the study.

Nobody doubts, I believe, that there are issues, e.g. of air quality which need addressing in built-up urban areas, nor that motorised transport (to different degrees based on what are the fuels used, the time driven etc.) is a contributor. The comparative extent of this contribution against other contributors is of course moot. And it should be noted that an actual remedy in one context may not be a full or even sufficient remedy in another.

Bottom line, the major cause of pollution in most cities is Man. The perfect solution would be to remove humans from the equation (this is the David Attenborough approach, arguing for massive population drops). Anything less than a total <word removed> is a compromise. The argument therefore is around the level to which such sub-optimal solutions make a contribution greater than their b***aration factor to people living, working in, serving  and visiting specific locales in which the 'solutions' are being tried out. And a solution in locale A which meets that criterion is certainly worth considering in locale B, but not implementing without thought and care and (perhaps small scale) trial. It is not a matter of faith, or at least, it shouldn't be.

[mr.chicken]

  On 18/08/2023 at 09:07, Rockets said:

Errmmmm Mr Chicken.......does the tweet I linked before not address one of those points on past-week cycling.....take a look...

Expand  

Ermmmmmm Rockets, you just accidentally pwn3d Heartblock. If you think the study is unsound then it doesn't support Heartblock's points either!

 

  On 18/08/2023 at 10:27, Penguin68 said:

 Bottom line, the major cause of pollution in most cities is Man. The perfect solution would be to remove humans from the equation (this is the David Attenborough approach, arguing for massive population drops).  Anything less than a total pogrom is a compromise.

Expand  

What the heck is the obsession of the pro-car crowd with the Jews? We've heard here a while back the comparisons of the "plight" of drivers to the plight of Jews in 1930s Germany, and now we're on to well, you're a bit incoherent so it's hard to tell exactly what you mean, but good on you for dragging the Jews into it again.

Please stop obsessing over us.

 

[heartblock]

When someone publishes research with: empirical data and double-blinded analysis on a pre and post methodology that proves that pollution over a specified area that includes boundary roads and LTNs, proves a significant drop in overall car, exhaust and tyre wear pollution post implementation - I will cross the Rubicon and become a very vocal advocate of LTNs.

[exdulwicher]

  On 18/08/2023 at 13:11, heartblock said:

When someone publishes research with: empirical data and double-blinded analysis on a pre and post methodology that proves that pollution over a specified area that includes boundary roads and LTNs, proves a significant drop in overall car, exhaust and tyre wear pollution post implementation - I will cross the Rubicon and become a very vocal advocate of LTNs.

Expand  

And you're never going to get that for several reasons - partly because what you're asking for is so far above what is needed to demonstrate "reasonably" that they work that there's no point in doing it, partly the cost and resources of doing it and partly the myriad of other factors behind it including the use (or otherwise) of complementary measures such as CPZ. It's not a medical study, it does not need medical grade data behind it.

We're going straight back to policy perfectionism and the old "I don't believe the data" argument. We shouldn't do anything unless it is absolutely perfect in every way, has zero negative impact on anyone and receives 100% support across literally every demographic we can think of and probably a few we can't. Not going to happen, ever, in any area of life.

Coupled with a quick dose of the data not being good enough where the goalposts on what is and isn't good enough are constantly shifting. It's been absolutely standard this for years not just in ED but across the country. Data is produced showing that - in general - LTNs work to varying degrees. The data is decried as being manipulated, contrived, flawed, biased, paid for...

More data of ever more esoteric and precise nature is requested - double blind trials (really?!) - but nothing is ever sufficient. If someone ever came up with empirical data and double-blinded analysis on a pre and post methodology that proves that pollution over a specified area that includes boundary roads and LTNs, proves a significant drop in overall car, exhaust and tyre wear pollution post implementation you'd claim that it was flawed, a poor example, only one case study, we should wait for more data and the charade would continue.

It's like trying to convince a Flat Earther. More evidence that the earth is round (yes, OK, it's an oblate spheroid...) is simply another clever NASA ruse, another case of paid actors pretending to be astronauts and so on and every time more footage from the ISS is aired, that's simply another Great Fake in the Great Globe Earth Scam.

Edited August 18, 2023 by exdulwicher

[Rockets]

Which brings us back to the whole point of this part of the discussion which is you'll always find people who will attack data that doesn't suit their narrative but when the authors of said research are 1) a person who was responsible for developing the LTN lobbying efforts for the LCC and 2) a person who pulls down posters that don't agree with their view of the world in relation to the very thing they are "independently assessing" then it puts the whole research on a very weak footing from the beginning and gives those against it huge amounts of ammunition. Those commissioning the research probably should have considered point 1 before engaging with UoW, they either didn't do their due-diligence or thought no-one would ever care - both of which are foolhardy to say the least.

[heartblock]

Comparing proof of the nature of our planetary system is a poor comparison, it isn’t research into an intervention. One wouldn’t give a population a drug that might harm certain sectors of society until it was proven that it did no harm. We went through this with Thalidomide.

Anything applied to an individual or population without consent that may adversely effect a cohort in that population should be proven to do no harm, then it should be proven to give the effect required.

  On 18/08/2023 at 13:42, exdulwicher said:

Data is produced showing that - in general - LTNs work to varying degrees

Expand  

Mmmh well that’s definitive then...

I’m told that LTNs are an intervention that benefits the health of a population by encouraging active travel and reducing car use, so a public health intervention? 

So in any public health intervention, harm may be experienced by different individuals than those who receive benefits. One ethical framework suggests that, “… the greater the burden imposed by a program, the greater must be the expected public health benefit, and the more uneven the benefits and burdens (that is, burdens are imposed on one group to protect the health of another), the greater must be the expected benefit”.

 

Edited August 18, 2023 by heartblock

[heartblock]

To my shame I have never read this document fully until today, very enlightening. 

https://www.transportforall.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Pave-The-Way-full-report.pdf

[Rockets]

Another Peter Walker exclusive....exclusively quoting his cohorts and peers from the cycle lobby - I wonder who gave him the exclusive! 😉

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/20/review-of-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-risks-creating-rat-runs-say-campaigners

Edited August 20, 2023 by Rockets

[mr.chicken]

  On 20/08/2023 at 14:41, Rockets said:

Another Peter Walker exclusive....exclusively quoting his cohorts and peers from the cycle lobby

Expand  

Well, good to see you agree with his points: if you'd found any of the facts in question to dispute you would have done so. For lack of those, you attack the author instead.

[Rockets]

Again, if you had been paying attention, you would know I have been very critical of Peter Walker's writing and reporting on this topic because his stories and headlines, how can we put it, seem to only tell one side of the story - the side of the story he is ideologically linked to.

 

But I am sure you will soon be critiquing his work too given how you had such strong opinions on the Torygraph article I linked to because of its right wing leaning and links to the Tories. (I am sure you know the same is true for the Guardian with the left and Labour don't you? ;-))