LTN Discussion

[Rockets]

Well only in respect of the fact that those that live inside them live with the carrot of less traffic whilst those outside them the stick of more traffic from the displacement.

[mr.chicken]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

Well only in respect of the fact that those that live inside them live with the carrot of less traffic whilst those outside them the stick of more traffic from the displacement.

If that's the reasoning I need to agree with you it would be astoundingly daft of me to agree with you.

[Rockets]

Yes I wasn't expecting you to agree with me but it is how a lot of people see it....it's all about the lived experience of the measures and whether you live in them or outside them. But my faith in humanity is restored when I hear so many people living inside them challenging them on the basis of what it does for other people taking the 'I'm alright Jack" and turning it into "I'm alright Jack but concerned about how Jack down the road might not be having as good a time with them as I am".

[mr.chicken]

54 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Yes I wasn't expecting you to agree with me but it is how a lot of people see it....it's all about the lived experience of the measures and whether you live in them or outside them.

Just how many places do you think I live in, Rockets?

I benefit from the Melbourne Grove LTN, the one down Railton Road to Brixton and all the ones along CS25 an roads nearby which make the route safe and easy to cycle.

 

 

[Rockets]

Don't flatter yourself Mr Chicken I wasn't talking about you (as in Mr Chicken) but you as in any person that may live on a road that is benefitting positively from the LTNs......

Glad to hear that you are cycling now as back in May you said you didn't cycle because of how dangerous and polluted the roads were - have you now taken the plunge and bought a bike? Welcome to the cycling world!

Edited August 10, 2023 by Rockets

[mr.chicken]

14 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Don't flatter yourself Mr Chicken I wasn't talking about you

Yeah you were.

You're moving the goalposts so quickly, I'm surprised you haven't violated causality by now.

I as a resident who does not live on many LTNs benefits from those LTNs.

Residents on the boundary roads of LTNs benefit from lower traffic than they'd otherwise see.

We all benefit because the number of polluting car journeys is reduced because pollution sticks in the bowl shaped region in which London sits but doesn't stay put to your road.

Some of the LTN residents are however unhappy because they (and I'm talking about people who can walk easily) have to walk places which are eminently walkable.

14 minutes ago, Rockets said:

have you now taken the plunge and bought a bike? Welcome to the cycling world!

The trouble is, you don't actually read what people write. If you'd actually read what I wrote you would know the answer to this. I already stated it multiple time. If you care to know, you can find out by actually reading my posts.

 

 

 

[Rockets]

3 minutes ago, mr.chicken said:

Residents on the boundary roads of LTNs benefit from lower traffic than they'd otherwise see.

Oooh.....that may have lit the blue touchpaper.....the good folks on East Dulwich Grove, Croxted Road (remember TFL said congestion was being caused by the LTNs that got out local councillors into hot water with Will Norman over the way they treated TFL staff - who held their ground and refused to redact that part of the report that the councillors desperately wanted changing), Dulwich Village and Lordship Lane may have something to say about that! But I suspect you won't listen to them because you read a council report that said everything was awesome and there was no LTN displacement at all.....;-)

 

5 minutes ago, mr.chicken said:

Some of the LTN residents are however unhappy because they (and I'm talking about people who can walk easily) have to walk places which are eminently walkable.

Given that Dulwich'ites walk more than any others in Southwark (around 65% of local journeys are by foot) there can't be many of them who are unhappy because we've been walking the walk for years so your theory may not hold up!

 

7 minutes ago, mr.chicken said:

30 minutes ago, Rockets said:

have you now taken the plunge and bought a bike? Welcome to the cycling world!

The trouble is, you don't actually read what people write. If you'd actually read what I wrote you would know the answer to this. I already stated it multiple time. If you care to know, you can find out by actually reading my posts.

 

Was legitimately interested as you said in May that you wouldn't cycle so was wondering what the catalyst to change was - did you take the plunge and buy a bike or are you using rental bikes? I used to cycle from Dulwich to Hammersmith long before there was a cycle lane in sight and used to love it - bar a couple of hairy moments at the Battersea Park roundabout it was perfectly safe and a very enjoyable way to get to work!

 

[mr.chicken]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Oooh.....that may have lit the blue touchpaper.....the good folks on East Dulwich Grove, Croxted Road (remember TFL said congestion was being caused by the LTNs that got out local councillors into hot water with Will Norman over the way they treated TFL staff - who held their ground and refused to redact that part of the report that the councillors desperately wanted changing), Dulwich Village and Lordship Lane may have something to say about that! But I suspect you won't listen to them because you read a council report that said everything was awesome and there was no LTN displacement at all.....;-)

Induced demand and it's inverse, reduced demand is a well documented phenomenon, with many studies and scientific papers. Where's it's been studied thoroughly locally, it has been seen that boundary road traffic is down relative to the control.

You are going to need more than anecdotes to overturn decades of traffic engineering and urban design knowledge especially as it transpires London isn't super special in this regard.

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Was legitimately interested as you said in May that you wouldn't cycle so was wondering what the catalyst to change was - did you take the plunge and buy a bike or are you using rental bikes? I used to cycle from Dulwich to Hammersmith long before there was a cycle lane in sight and used to love it - bar a couple of hairy moments at the Battersea Park roundabout it was perfectly safe and a very enjoyable way to get to work!

I used to cycle in London a lot in the 90s, would go from New Malden to Epsom Downs and Banstead. I left London and when I returned a decade ago (from Cambridge where cycling is the primary mode of transport), the roads felt too busy and aggressive for my liking. I saw the recent aftermath of someone killed by a tipper truck in London and realized that it was not for me.

The LTNs came along and I started exploring more around by scooter as there were many more less acutely polluted routes. I realized the roads were empty enough for my liking so I bought a new helmet and hopped on a Lime bike. I'm now in the process of restoring my old and much loved bike from a decade of storage. It needs (among other things) a new front wheel. Maybe I'll bite the bullet and replace the forks again so I can get disc brakes on the front. Undecided.

ETA: probably the instigating incident was needing to get to Waterloo when the trains to London Bridge were bad. I realized I could cycle along the North Bank along an entirely segregated cycle way, so I tried it. I put 2 and 2 together then and that's when I really realized the LTNs made cycling safe enough for me.

Edited August 10, 2023 by mr.chicken

[Rockets]

This is interesting. The Times reporting that the govt is putting pressure to determine if the likes of Rachel Aldred are independent enough to be involved in conducting reviews into LTNs - but is says the review will continue.

 

It is clear many involved have clear conflicts of interest and it is amazing it has been allowed to go on for as long as it has where lobbyists act as the reviewers as well.

 

https://twitter.com/VincentStops/status/1690999995439153152?t=_AxWkPIzeD8nqeCwJnlG0w&s=19

 

Some highlights from the article (which can be found in the link):

 

The transport secretary has asked officials to examine how research into low-traffic neighbourhoods and other policies can be "genuinely independent" amid concerns that studies are being conducted by people whose opinion might prejudice their work.

 

And Anna Goodman's moment of stupidity with the anti-LTN poster gets called out as well.

 

Very interesting as well was this part on Sustrans which highlights the ludicrousness of contracting an organisation to review the schemes that was involved in both lobbying for them and then paid to implement them - not only are you allowing the pupils to mark their own homework they were allowed to set the questions too!!:

 

Another subcontractor for the study is Sustrans, a charity that promotes cycling and walking. This year The Times revealed how Sustrans had actively lobbied for LTNs and received contracts with millions for councils to design and implement the schemes.

[mr.chicken]

3 hours ago, Rockets said:

This is interesting. The Times reporting that the govt is putting pressure to determine if the likes of Rachel Aldred are independent enough to be involved in conducting reviews into LTNs - but is says the review will continue.

The Tories are setting up cars and environment as another culture war.

The majority of people in the country, but not notably in London drive cars. Sunak knows votes in London, especially boroughs like Southwark are worthless to him, so it doesn't matter to him how much harm he does here. He's trying to score points to get more votes in marginal districts by sticking it to those London wokeist liberal elites after your cars.

It's only interesting in as much as "interesting times" are interesting.

 

[Rockets]

Yes the Tories are doing that because they saw what happened in Uxbridge - they're desperate.

 

But the interesting point is not that, it's the fact that the cosy, nepotistic world of active-travel/cycling lobbying, councils, researchers, journalists and consultants is going to get a spotlight shone on it.

 

It is utter madness that it was allowed to get this far to be honest.

[exdulwicher]

41 minutes ago, Rockets said:

But the interesting point is not that, it's the fact that the cosy, nepotistic world of active-travel/cycling lobbying, councils, researchers, journalists and consultants is going to get a spotlight shone on it.

If you're really against cosy nepotistic worlds, you want to be looking a bit more closely at Westminster! An Environment Secretary with £70,000 shares in Shell, appointments for mates, MPs walking into senior consultancy roles at various shady organisations immediately after stepping down...

And it's not getting a spotlight shone on it at all, it's simply another culture war. Look over here at these dodgy cyclists! Don't look over here as I receive another all-expenses-paid weekend away courtesy of a fossil fuel company...

Shapps did the same last year - can't remember what the actual Government cock-up was this time around (there have been so many) but it got effectively hidden when Shapps said he'd "look again" at mandatory helmets or number plates for cyclists or something. That generated hours of radio phone in tirades, miles of opinion columns, a wave of anti-cyclist rhetoric on social media all of which detracted nicely from the latest round of Government cronyism and corruption.

This simply goes back to the data argument. You don't like the data and the answers therefore it must be false, biased, manipulated, flawed, not enough data, too much data and above all "not independent". Someone truly independent wouldn't have a clue what they were assessing - no matter what industry you work in, the people doing the assessing are experts in that field. I can assess a transport scheme cos I know what I'm looking for, what data is required and how to use it. I wouldn't have the first clue of what to do if someone asked me to assess a nuclear power station nor would I ever think I knew better than the people that actually do this.

Transport gets it worse than other areas because everyone uses transport and everyone can say "oh the trains are crap" and "oh this traffic is really bad". But they won't understand it or know how to actually measure and assess it and come up with plans to fix it. It's purely a culture war which unfortunately has degenerated to nasty personal attacks on the experts in that area. 

[mr.chicken]

59 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Yes the Tories are doing that because they saw what happened in Uxbridge - they're desperate.

They saw that they just scraped a win in Uxbridge: a seat which has been very solidly conservative for over 50 years.

It's a Tory talking point that they won because of the ULEZ, one which Starmer has been repeating uncritically. Though given his position is "I'm just like the Tories but not as bad so vote for us", it doesn't do his personal position any harm to simply adopt their points as his own.

I actuality, the pro ULEZ green party gained votes and the lib dems who have been very lukewarm towards the current plans lost votes.

It's possible that without ULEZ labour would have won. It's also possible that if Starmer had any identifiable policies, then Labour would have won. Either way we don't know but that doesn't mean the vacuum of knowledge should be filled with Tory invented facts.

 

 

 

Edited August 15, 2023 by mr.chicken

[Rockets]

Ex- you're right, transport does get it worse...the nepotism and insiders-only approach is horrendous. It's an incestuous  closed shop of active travel activists all of whom have roles both setting and marking the homework.

 

The point remains does anyone think it's a good idea having researchers like Rachel Aldred and Anna Goodman being part of the independent review into LTNs? One was policy lead for the London Cycling Campaign, the other has history of tearing down anti-LTN posters - doesn't  suggest to me that they would be totally impartial?

That has always been a problem and the Sustrans involvement is another big issue - does anyone think it is healthy having a group lobby for, consult on, get paid to deploy LTNs and then be contracted to be part of the review of LTNs - that's the very definition of a vested interest. 

[mr.chicken]

We should ban anyone with a car because they have a vested interest. Also anyone with a bike because they have a vested interest too. Honestly I'm a bit suspicious about pedestrians: I think they might have pre conceived opinions about being run over or breathing bad air which would bias them.

But we should certainly and I mean 100% absolutely ban anyone with knowledge because they might use it!

It's like those disgusting cancer researchers benefiting from all those research grants about cancer taking it out on the poor tobacco industry. Talk about bias!!

[Rockets]

Mr Chicken - your distraction approach isn't working (either that or you're clearly missing the point entirely).

Isn't having Aldred involved akin to asking someone from the motor industry to write the review?

She may have knowledge but she has a clear vested-interest (that she declares on many of her research papers).

The tobacco industry has knowledge but you would not want them leading a review on the harms of smoking would you?

[mr.chicken]

19 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Isn't having Aldred involved akin to asking someone from the motor industry to write the review?

No. Next question?

[Rockets]

Of course it is. She is part of the cycle lobby and has held positions in it. She should be nowhere near anything to do with anything active travel that claims to be independent. As I said earlier she declares it as a conflict of interest in many of her reports so she must feel it could be an issue - just shame those commissioning these reports aren't doing their due diligence...or perhaps they don't care because they also have a vested interest to prove their ideas work.

 

Activist research is a dangerous thing that is great when it works and no-one pays any attention but it can go off the rails very quickly when people start to scratch beneath the surface. The house of cards falls very quickly when those in power start distancing themselves from the mess they created.

 

 

[heartblock]

Professor Aldred was on the LCC committee that promoted and pushed for LTNs. The minutes also describe the 'sacrificial roads' indicating that traffic should be diverted to these areas to give cyclists roads with no or very little traffic. In those minutes 'evaporation' not mentioned, but increasing traffic on larger (and residential roads with low income, high BAME residents and low car ownership) roads deemed suitable for increased traffic and pollution, so that mainly white. middle-class and wealthier cyclists could have low traffic journeys.

Safe routes - yes, increase in PT - yes, planned areas of low traffic - yes, encourging walking, cycling and PT use- yes.

Diverting polluting traffic to poorer and high density housing areas with high BAME... go reflect on yourself.

Do the research - the minutes exist.

[Rockets]

And her role in that alone should have precluded her from going anywhere near funded research into LTNs. We all know it, even the most ardent defender of LTNs must, deep down, think that is a serious conflict of interest.

And you can't take Anna Goodman's work seriously after her poster episode and again she should be nowhere near any "independent" funded research into LTNs. She has shown she is anything but impartial when it comes to LTNs.

 

But no, many LTN supporters will say...no,no, no this is all perfectly normal and acceptable and go into defend to the hilt mode...but deep down they must know it's not right and highly questionable.

[mr.chicken]

This is like saying all climate change researchers are activists and shouldn't be involved in any of the discussions because they almost all know climate change is happening and have the activist opinions that (a) it will be bad and (b) we ought to do something about it.

The research is quite clear: more cars will not improve the city and 9,000 people or so die a year in London due to pollution.

In the real world, not all opinions are equally valid. And a middle ground between a rational position and an absurd position is still an absurd position.

 

@heartblock: remind me where's the industry award you got for overturning decades of research on induced and reduced demand?

[Rockets]

And it remains absurd to have someone being paid huge amounts of money to research the effectiveness of measures that they helped define the strategy for and lobby for whilst at London Cycling Campaign.....you don't get more of a conflict of interest than that...well maybe you do and that award is taken by Sustrans for their role...;-)

 

It will be interesting to see if Anna Goodman has been allowed to continue in her role in the research - if she has then any new research will be massively tainted by her actions.

[mr.chicken]

19 minutes ago, Rockets said:

And it remains absurd to have someone being paid huge amounts of money

How much money are you claiming she has personally pocketed as a result of this?

[Rockets]

Ha ha...more distraction tactics Mr Chicken....;-) I have no interest in how much money she earns but the unit she heads on active travel at the University of Westminster was awarded £1.5m for the independent LTN review project and of course the co-author of that report was slated to be Dr. Anna Goodman.

 

https://www.westminster.ac.uk/news/university-of-westminster-to-lead-major-ps15m-new-study-on-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-in-london

[heartblock]

1 hour ago, mr.chicken said:

This is like saying all climate change researchers are activists and shouldn't be involved in any of the discussions because they almost all know climate change is happening and have the activist opinions that (a) it will be bad and (b) we ought to do something about it.

The research is quite clear: more cars will not improve the city and 9,000 people or so die a year in London due to pollution.

In the real world, not all opinions are equally valid. And a middle ground between a rational position and an absurd position is still an absurd position.

 

@heartblock: remind me where's the industry award you got for overturning decades of research on induced and reduced demand?

Remind me of the research that empirically proves LTNs reduce pollution and car USE/ congestion and pollution?

Car use was dropping in London pre-Covid (TFL data) and cycling was increasing (TFL data), traffic was not increasing on minor roads

TFL data in response to FOI request when ‘increasing traffic on minor roads’ was used by Councils to justify LTNs on minor roads - TFL later admitted the ‘increase’ was due to an administrative exercise and in fact traffic on minor rds was stable and in some cases reducing. There was an increase in traffic and congestion on larger rds though....

LTNs really are green-washing, and actually make an excuse that something is being done, it’s a bit like huge companies having carbon offsets to excuse their polluting activities,

bring in ULEZ, bring in cheap, reliable publicly owned and I would encourage free at the point of use public transport, also close all private schools and get kids to go to fully funded and locally accessible state run schools.

LTNs are centrist pish.