Earl Aelfheah

We have a lot of data gathered from across London and a number of different schemes. Of course you can pick out imperfections and question individual data points, or interventions. But it's difficult to ignore the macro picture imo. Unless you are absolutely determined to confirm your preconceptions.

If buses don't run frequently, then you limit capacity on the network. Good public transport encourages people out of their cars, which does have an impact on climate change. On the ULEZ point - it seeks to further disincentivise the ownership / use of high polluting vehicles, which impact on air quality and people's health. It also raises money to help offset a little of the externalised costs generated by those who still choose to drive high polluting vehicles, which would otherwise be socialised. RE. LTNs - we know that they reduce the overall number of car journeys and encourage more walking and cycling. These things together - fewer polluting vehicles, fewer short distance car journeys, more walking and cycling and more frequent public transport are good things imo. I find it strange that you would oppose all of them. Interested to hear your alternative strategies.

I doubt it. Apparently you didn't even read my post properly. The quote is clear that there has been a small increase, on average on some roads, and bigger drops on others. The net outcome - an overall drop in traffic: "...Mean falls in motor traffic on internal roads are around ten times greater than mean rises in motor traffic on boundary roads, adjusting for background trends... the results indicate that motor traffic has been reduced, and only a small proportion re-routed to boundary roads. This is suggested by the mean increase of 82 vehicles per day on each boundary road being much lower than the mean reduction of 815 vehicles on each internal road." You can always read the 'about' section on their website. There is no great conspiracy.

I suspect it’s about implementing parking restrictions near schools during certain hours to make it safer for those arriving on foot, by bike and scooter perhaps? Not sure

Like a lot of streets in ED the pavements are can be quite narrow in places. Hopefully something Southwark’s walking strategy will address

Great to see a walking strategy. It's quite remarkable that 'designing public spaces around pedestrians' is not what we're doing already (but it's definitely not).

I think it was actually called the Barry barry road race (two 'barrys'). And yes it was a foot race between the Plough and the Clockhouse pub. [edited to add a link I just found]:

The plans look OK, but there is a bit of a lack of detail. I have no problem with student accommodation, there is quite a lot just up the road in Campion Hill, which suggests there is demand.

In favour of new flats, but would be good if they weren't designed to only last 30 years and included some social housing. Also, strongly against using the space to provide car storage.

I suggest you read it (I mean if you're genuinely interested in the facts and not just confirming your bias). It's quite nuanced and the narrative is interesting. But overall LTNs have reduced traffic

Not a bad list. Like you say it's all very subjective and context specific (as in, when and where you grew up and what was going on at the time). Surprised Kind of Blue isn't on there though.. and no Prince, even though he gets several mentions in the quotes from other artists in the article. Regardless of personal taste, both Miles and Prince hugely influential. ...and no Sonic Youth, no Pixies, no Nirvana? Should definitely have Screamadelica and Loveless on there too. Whoever put that list together couldn't have grown up in the 90s

I can't bring myself to drink in spoons due to it's founder and Chairman.

I seem to recall promises that the closure of East Dulwich sorting office would not impact service 🙄

Saw this on Twitter Car Fire Mini on fire

Of course, this isn't what it says at all. Anyone actually interested in the true picture should read the paper, which is a really thorough, and balanced meta-analysis of the data: "...Mean falls in motor traffic on internal roads are around ten times greater than mean rises in motor traffic on boundary roads, adjusting for background trends... the results indicate that motor traffic has been reduced, and only a small proportion re-routed to boundary roads. This is suggested by the mean increase of 82 vehicles per day on each boundary road being much lower than the mean reduction of 815 vehicles on each internal road."

strong thighs squatters

Used to host the barry barry road race.

Another meta analysis. Same conclusions as all of the growing body of academic research. LTNs work https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213624X23001785

@Rocks - The report does not comment on cycling in London - it does not as you suggest, state that active travel in the capital has fallen. The 'analysis' you're quoting is from a guy on Twitter who has posted some homemade charts he says is based on their data. So I guess the question is whether a professionally commissioned report on cycling in London is a more credible source than a guy on Twitter known for his anti-LTN stance. Tell me this - do you really believe that there hasn't been a massive increase in cycling in London over the last decade? Really? Because, if you commute into town every day as you claim, I don't believe it.

It’s not from the report. Read the report - after all you’re the one who started a thread on it. It’s from a guy on Twitter who says he’s using data the dft collected and on which he has done his own ‘analysis’, sharing his graphs with anti LTN folk on social media. And if you follow the link I posted on the TFL report, you’ll find that their data is specified, linked to, and covers the same period one year apart. It is also specific to London. But all that aside, honestly.. as someone who claims to cycle daily in London 🤨, can you really say that you have not seen the increase in cycling that has taken place over the last ten years? Really?

I may be wrong, but I think the Dft report only quotes numbers on cycling nationally. It doesn't really comment on cycling in London. The Tfl report is (naturally) about London specifically, and suggests that cycling is up 40% on pre-pandemic numbers. Still, for those who would ignore the evidence of their own eyes and claim that cycling in London has not boomed over the last couple of decades, the Dft report is something to latch on to I guess.

This will be very popular I imagine. Surprised there hasn't been a bubble tea place open up before now tbh.

The dft report is based on survey data, also more than a year old. Apparently this is ‘good data’, but measures comparing actual trips made at two similar periods a year apart is ‘bad data’. 🤔 More importantly, the DFT report actually shows a steady increase in cycling over time. How exactly? The number of people cycling in central London has more than doubled since 2000 and cyclists now out number motorists in the City. Despite fewer workers commuting daily into central London, cycling is up on pre-pandemic levels. If you don’t want to believe TfL, then use the evidence of your own eyes. Anyone who travels into Central London during the rush hour will tell you how many more cyclists there are now to say a decade ago. The determination of a few on here to constantly push back on any active travel measures, is just bizarre to me.

https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/media/press-releases/2022/november/new-tfl-data-shows-continued-boom-in-walking-and-cycling-with-almost-twice-as-many-now-living-near-a-high-quality-cycle-route

Numbers aren't going down Rocket. Cycling in London has boomed over the last couple of decades. It's the main mode of transport now in the City, and across the capital it's up 40% on pre-pandemic levels. If (as you claim) you cycle into town every day, you'll see yourself how many cyclists there are, especially at peak rush hour. On many of the main, segregated cycle routes (such as the one over Blackfriars bridge), there is actually bike congestion!