LTN: Our Healthy Streets - Dulwich: Phase 3

[Rockets]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> heartblock Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Oh and TFL has also published data that cycle

> use

> > has dropped back across London to almost

> > pre-lockdown levels...I imagine quite a few

> > bicycles on gumtree soon, not my little two

> > wheeled horse though, she travels pre/post

> > lockdowns and pandemics, but doesn?t like rain

> > 😜

>

> Any link to this data?

>

> And any evidence that making driving easier,

> reduces car journeys? There is lot's showing the

> opposite.

>

> I know you've said previously that it's best not

> to respond to requests for evidence or to

> questions from others, but this is a discussion

> forum, so perhaps you'll reconsider?

>

> Re. walking, if people decide not to make a

> journey in their car, many will walk it instead.

> LTNs discourage car use, particularly for short

> local trips.

Rahx3 - this Labour councillor in Hackney has been pointing people to a lot of the data from TFL showing that there was a cycle boom in the first lockdown that has now all but evaporated. It is certainly noticeable around Dulwich how fewer cyclists there are (of course, school holidays will impact that but still we aren't even in winter yet).

The figures show that even with good weather this summer cycling numbers have dropped significantly/hugely since the first lockdown.

And it seems this trend is being seen nationally too.

https://twitter.com/SingleFilePlz/status/1426861705586380804/photo/1

Unfortunately modal shift to cycling seems to have been a temporary blip that was unsustainable but many of people did predict this. The cycling revolution just doesn't appear to be happening - maybe the council and supporters of LTNs will go back to the drawing boards to work out why.

[heartblock]

The UN advises that only decent, cheap, clean, regular and end to end public transport will reduce the 'convenience' of using cars.

Of course, the lobby groups tied to LTNs and cycling as 'the' answer ignore the raw data from TFL and the actual raw data from their own research, forgetting to exclude confounding variables such as a pandemic and lockdown and grouping cycling and walking together, to prove a significant increase in cycling that in reality does not exist.

When the data is appropriately peer reviewed and the information is drilled down to the actual collected raw data, with variables accounted for, there is no evidence whatsoever that LTNs reduce car use or pollution or have any great impact on increasing 'active' travel.

[DuncanW]

Just catching up on some of these posts.

So... Dulwich active travel levels are already super-high, probably couldn't get higher - they're at the maxiimum basically.

But also... cycle journeys had a boom in the first lockdown, and that has now all but evaporated.

Might take me a little while to process that.

[slarti b2]

DuncanW Wrote:

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

> So... Dulwich active travel levels are already super-high, probably couldn't get higher - they're

> at the maxiimum basically. But also... cycle journeys had a boom in the first lockdown, and that has now all but evaporated.

> Might take me a little while to process that.

Why? Cycling journeys are a very small proportion of active travel journeys, less than 10% according to TfL. So a big increase in cycling can lead to small increase in active travel.

[Abe_froeman]

The boom was in some cases equivalent to an increase from 1 cyclist to2 cyclists 100% more people cycling wow!!!

[Rockets]

slarti b2 Wrote:

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

> DuncanW Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > So... Dulwich active travel levels are already

> super-high, probably couldn't get higher -

> they're

> > at the maxiimum basically. But also... cycle

> journeys had a boom in the first lockdown, and

> that has now all but evaporated.

> > Might take me a little while to process that.

>

> Why? Cycling journeys are a very small proportion

> of active travel journeys, less than 10% according

> to TfL. So a big increase in cycling can lead to

> small increase in active travel.

And remember 68% of local journeys were already active travel yet only 3% of those were cycling.

I know some people don't want to hear this but maybe ploughing huge amounts of money into trying to increase the cycle share of active travel isn't the answer. The obsession with trying to make London the new cycling Amsterdam may well be hugely flawed and a complete white elephant.

[heartblock]

It's a diversion, the real need is investment in public transport. LTNs are the Conservative party's idea so attention is diverted away from cuts in public transport policy and road building programs...and silly labour councils have taken the bait - thinking it would also make them popular with vocal, middle-class voters on nice leafy roads.

[Metallic]

We need more public transport.It is simple. instead of TfL fiddling about on roads for cyclists now that they have done their worst could they please turn their attention to area-linking buses and to car sharing journeys, more school buses and get the trains back to normal.

[DuncanW]

"and silly labour councils have taken the bait - thinking it would also make them popular with vocal, middle-class voters on nice leafy roads"

Do you genuinely believe that is one of the council's drivers for doing this?

[slarti b2]

@DuncanW

Have you had time to process how a large percent increase in cycling ( if it actually happened)results in a small increase in active travel?

[ED - NAGAIUTB]

DuncanW Wrote:

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

> "and silly labour councils have taken the bait -

> thinking it would also make them popular with

> vocal, middle-class voters on nice leafy roads"

>

> Do you genuinely believe that is one of the

> council's drivers for doing this?

I suspect that many of them knew that the party veering hard left with Corbyn and Momentum was going to lose their middle class voters or at least put them at risk, so they're shoring up their seats by listening to the chattering (and actively voting) white middle classes. I think that they may regret it as more seats will be under pressure post LTN's and people either vote against them or, at best, just don't turn up to vote for them.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@heartblock - thanks for providing some Twitter links. But the screenshot which has been posted isn't Tfl data (unless I'm missing something?) and doesn't seem to relate to London. When I go to the web address that is given as the source, I can't find it. Any chance you can point to the Tfl data you referred to?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Metallic Wrote:

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

> We need more public transport.It is simple.

> instead of TfL fiddling about on roads for

> cyclists now that they have done their worst could

> they please turn their attention to area-linking

> buses and to car sharing journeys, more school

> buses and get the trains back to normal.

We need better public transport, more car sharing, and more safe space for walking and cycling.

[DuncanW]

But Corbyn was the party leader at the time of the last council election in 2018. And Labour in Southwark increased their no of votes, no of seats and %share of the vote - also won the two seats for the newly created ward of Dulwich Village - a geography that has the highest Conservative support in the borough.

We will learn if LTNs become a cause for regret in the next election this coming Spring.

[Abe_froeman]

rahrahrah before you troll anyone else with your never-ending and ludicrous demands for more sources and more evidence, will just come clean and admit that there no data whatsover could ever be published by anybodywhatsoever that would convince you that the LTNs in Duliwch are a failure.

At least if you were honest about that you would save yourself and everyone else you harangue an awful lot of time.

[heartblock]

Well as I didn't supply any links......

[Earl Aelfheah]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> rahrahrah before you troll anyone else with your

> never-ending and ludicrous demands for more

> sources and more evidence, will just come clean

> and admit that there no data whatsover could ever

> be published by anybodywhatsoever that would

> convince you that the LTNs in Duliwch are a

> failure.

>

> At least if you were honest about that you would

> save yourself and everyone else you harangue an

> awful lot of time.

Any data would be good. I?m not trolling anyone. I don?t think it?s unreasonable if someone says ?TfL data shows?? to ask where that data is published.

[Earl Aelfheah]

?The idea that I am not interested in any data that doesn?t conform to a particular view, because I have asked to see exactly that data, is kind of absurd.

[first mate]

The source of the data is on the links provided, clear for all to see.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Follow the links and tell me where there is TFL data showing a decrease in cycling across London. It appears to be DfT data for England, and I cannot see where the particular graphs are from. If the TfL data exists, then I?m genuinely interested in seeing it.

[Otto2]

Thanks for asking rahrahrah - I could not find data that would generate those charts either -- my gut feeling is that it is not there as I did a pretty thorough dig.

[Abe_froeman]

"I?m genuinely interested in seeing it."

Lol

More sealioning

[Lowlander]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> "I?m genuinely interested in seeing it."

> Lol

> More sealioning

Seems a reasonable request - if you have an argument, you have evidence. Otherwise all you have is meaningless and verbose language. To paraphrase, the last refuge of a scoundrel.

There's 216 pages on this thread - you could provide the links afresh; otherwise you're not going to convince us newbies.

Yu've got 330 followers on twitter and 216 pages on an obscure local forum...and you can do better than this.

[northernmonkey]

I?ve also looked for this TFL data and can?t find it. My assumption is that heartblock has seen mention of it and repeated it without checking it exists. Of course this may be incorrect and heartblock can provide links. Let?s see

[Rockets]

My you all love a pile-on don't you? Heartblock didn't circulate the tweet from the Labour councillor showing the decline I did. And I referenced TFL in my message but the data is from DfT not TFL so that was my error - the text links to the data the councillor used to source are embedded within the graphic. He has been pushing the cycling in decline message for some time so he must believe the data supports it.

I do think it is interesting that a Labour councillor neighbouring one of the areas supposedly benefitting from LTNs is taking such a strong position against them. His tweets are very interesting.