Author Topic: LTNs - BMJ article  (Read 2727 times)

LTNs - BMJ article
« on: March 01, 2021, 05:52:28 pm »
Would any BMJ subscribers be willing to provide the gist of this article for us all - https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n443 ?

Many thanks if you can.
Rust never sleeps

FifeingEejit

  • Not Small
Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #1 on: March 01, 2021, 06:39:26 pm »
Evidence from existing LTNs nationally and internationally are encouraging

People living in LTNs get more exercise

7% reduction in vehicle ownership in LTNs
Considerably higher than areas with non LTN based things like protected cycle tracks alone.

75% reduction in being injured in an accident with a motor vehicle

The vocal minority objecting to them need to be ignored until evidence is proven.

The need is urgent and a car based return to activity will be negligent


Study was Funded by DfT and TFL


Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2021, 08:06:33 pm »
Many thanks !!
Rust never sleeps

Socks

  • Clennel Street on my touring bike
Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2021, 08:25:02 pm »
So we can expect that in a government which listens to the scientific evidence, Rich Sunak's budget will abandon the 27 billion investment in roads for cars and trucks, and instead spend it on active travel schemes and health promotion.


Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2021, 08:42:41 pm »
The Netherlands has an excellent trunk road network from what I can tell. They can be a good complement to LTNs.

That is if you manage it correctly and don't allow them to enable car-only suburban sprawl, as we will no doubt continue to do.

Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2021, 08:42:54 pm »
So we can expect that in a government which listens to the scientific evidence, Rich Sunak's budget will abandon the 27 billion investment in roads for cars and trucks, and instead spend it on active travel schemes and health promotion.

Yeah, right.

The government will choose which experts it's tired of listening to.
Rust never sleeps

Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #6 on: March 01, 2021, 08:58:27 pm »
I love seeing so many new people on bicycles - the number dipped a bit in the cold time, but its ballooned again now the sun is out.

But for this to be a lasting change, I would be really interested in how the study separated the effects of lockdown/work from home/school closed from those of the LTN. Do they demonstrate that?

Anecdotally, a lot of the people I know who recently choose a bicycle was because, "I don't want to die of plague on the tube". Rather than the LTN stopped me driving 300 yards to go to the gym - which by the way, was a real local example: The irony was entirely wasted on that person.

EDIT: Forgot to say I live in an area with LTN's. Which as a cyclist, I love.

Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #7 on: March 01, 2021, 09:12:20 pm »
But for this to be a lasting change, I would be really interested in how the study separated the effects of lockdown/work from home/school closed from those of the LTN.

Part of the thinking of LTNs and pop up cycle lanes is that the people who've suddenly taken it up for plague reasons need to find it pleasant or at least tolerable enough to continue.

Everyone is living in plague times but if you can find a measurable difference between LTN vs non-LTN areas then that's still good evidence for LTNs.

FifeingEejit

  • Not Small
Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #8 on: March 01, 2021, 09:38:17 pm »
I love seeing so many new people on bicycles - the number dipped a bit in the cold time, but its ballooned again now the sun is out.

But for this to be a lasting change, I would be really interested in how the study separated the effects of lockdown/work from home/school closed from those of the LTN. Do they demonstrate that?

Anecdotally, a lot of the people I know who recently choose a bicycle was because, "I don't want to die of plague on the tube". Rather than the LTN stopped me driving 300 yards to go to the gym - which by the way, was a real local example: The irony was entirely wasted on that person.

EDIT: Forgot to say I live in an area with LTN's. Which as a cyclist, I love.

LTNs are only a new concept in the UK.

The Dutch traffic design system of distributor roads with adjacent compulsory cycle / access roads and low speed limit residential roads is considered to be LTNs to give years worth of data.
Te car is de gast.

The Germans also have a similar concept


And oh WAIT the UK has had a similar concept available for use for years...




FifeingEejit

  • Not Small
Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #9 on: March 01, 2021, 10:08:05 pm »
Edit to the above:

It's not the low speed residential road concept found in villages, it's the Woonerf concept found in larger towns and cities.

Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #10 on: March 01, 2021, 11:26:00 pm »
Most places in the UK already have LTNs or LTN-ish interventions of one form or another. The novelty is formalising the concept and trying to roll it out more widely, rather than the reactive way its been done in the past.

Woonerfs and Car De Gast streets are slightly different things. Either they take an LTN to the next level or sometimes are attempted without properly blocking through traffic and are usually terrible.

ian

  • feat. Undead Jess & Finestre, Queen of Hell
Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #11 on: March 02, 2021, 10:04:54 am »
I've written about it before, but when we lived in West Ealing back in Tudor times (early 2000s), our street became a home zone, which was pretty much restricted through traffic, bollards and planters, and parking changes. It wasn't revolutionary but it felt like a step in the right direction in simply reprioritizing the street away from simply an avenue to channel traffic.

It's no surprise all the gripes from the vocal minority then are the same as today to the letter. They used to stick letters through the door at the dead-of-night warning that our neighbours weren't against it, why weren't we. Come on, we know who you are, you're the fat bloke across the street, it's not really intimidating. He'd hide when I went and shoved them back through the door. I think the main anti-campaign was just that bloke and a couple of hangers-on. I'm not sure what they got out it, it wasn't exactly radical change.
Support the Great Surrey Bear Census 2020

Cudzoziemiec

  • Eating all the pies and drinking all the tea.
Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #12 on: March 02, 2021, 10:30:15 am »
I've understood the Dutch woonerf concept to be a development from new that is designed in a way to deprioritize cars and driving. So you can't park outside your house, all parking is relegated to a car-pen in one corner of the development, there's only one way in and out by car but several on foot or bike, lots of space for non-driving activities (grass, benches, gardens, basketball courts and whatever), and so on. Whereas the LTNs are retrofitting some of those concepts to an existing pattern of streets and houses.
Riding a bike through a city is like navigating the collective neural pathways of a vast global mind.

Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #13 on: March 02, 2021, 10:38:09 am »
Speaking of a data-led approach...I very much enjoyed this letter from Will Norman (London Mayor's Walking & Cycling Commissioner) to Tony Devenish (Conservative London Assembly Member for Kensington & Chelsea)

https://twitter.com/willnorman/status/1366457770044764164

(Ok it's about cycle infrastructure rather than LTNs)

Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #14 on: March 02, 2021, 11:03:55 am »
Great letter. Devenish sounds like he should be in the ST thread.
Rust never sleeps

Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #15 on: March 02, 2021, 01:04:46 pm »
...how the study separated the effects of lockdown/work from home/school closed from those of the LTN. Do they demonstrate that?
I haven’t read this particular article, but there are plenty of other neighbourhoods that have not had through traffic excluded so it should be possible to identify control neighbourhoods that have otherwise generally similar characteristics for comparison, other studies have taken such an approach.

Most places in the UK already have LTNs or LTN-ish interventions of one form or another....
I suspect that the majority of these are cul-de-sacs and have an important difference compared to an LTN in that there is generally little or no use of modal filters so people wishing to make journeys on foot or by bike suffer exactly the same inconveniences as people driving their cars. LTNs actually make walking and cycling a bit more convenient than driving for short local journeys.

Mr Larrington

  • A bit ov a lyv wyr by slof standirds
  • Custard Wallah
    • Mr Larrington's Automatic Diary
Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #16 on: March 02, 2021, 02:32:54 pm »
Great letter. Devenish sounds like he should be in the ST thread.

As do the taxi drivers.
External Transparent Wall Inspection Operative & Mayor of Mortagne-au-Perche
Satisfying the Bloodlust of the Masses in Peacetime

Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #17 on: March 02, 2021, 02:50:42 pm »
I suspect that the majority of these are cul-de-sacs and have an important difference compared to an LTN in that there is generally little or no use of modal filters so people wishing to make journeys on foot or by bike suffer exactly the same inconveniences as people driving their cars.

Alleyways and snickets for pedestrianing are a surprisingly common part of suburban planning even will into the car era. Though many of them have cycling banned and anti-people-with-wheels barriers installed. It's only the last few decades we've been building cul-de-sacs that are inescapable by anything but car.

Likewise anti-rat-running barriers rarely block pedestrians, but often block cyclists for no good reason.

Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #18 on: March 02, 2021, 03:12:08 pm »

Most places in the UK already have LTNs or LTN-ish interventions of one form or another....
I suspect that the majority of these are cul-de-sacs and have an important difference compared to an LTN in that there is generally little or no use of modal filters so people wishing to make journeys on foot or by bike suffer exactly the same inconveniences as people driving their cars. LTNs actually make walking and cycling a bit more convenient than driving for short local journeys.
[/quote]

Old barriers/concrete/bollards put in ages ago to stop rat running (but allow walking and cycling) on a particular street are pretty common and you never, ever hear of anyone campaigning to have them removed.

Apparently they often used to be put in in response to a child being killed by a rat-running driver (eg at least one in Tower Hamlets is due to this). We've even got them in some streets in Croydon and Sutton (though sometimes cars like to park against them in such a way that cycling through them is difficult).

Railways can create quite useful barriers too (I can cycle from Croydon to Beckenham on a relatively quiet route crossing underneath the railway three times on tunnels that are ped/cyclist only - though this is less good after dark if I'm alone, especially the long one that goes underneath several lines).

Great letter. Devenish sounds like he should be in the ST thread.

As do the taxi drivers.

I wish the some of the taxi drivers weren't so bloody awful on twitter and the like. We don't have a car and therefore we're also customers (eg when I broke my arm and needed to load the bike into the back on the way back from A&E, and when the dog needed the vet a black cab was more likely to take her than a minicab for various reasons). Seeing the bile some of them spout makes me think twice about being a customer.

ian

  • feat. Undead Jess & Finestre, Queen of Hell
Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #19 on: March 02, 2021, 03:53:59 pm »
As a once-upon-a-time regular user of black cabs (expenses, ah), they really don't do great PR for themselves, do they? I've mostly stopped doing Twitter since it's debate by pantomine, but I can't imagine they've got any better. I'd be happy to see them lose their entitlements and privileges and be treated like any other taxi service. Whoo, you know where the streets are in London. Super! So does Google. Ultimately, it's the last gasps of a dying industry.

I'm now trying to think of three railway underpasses between Croydon and Beckenham (I used to live between the two, by the train line from Crystal Palace to Beckenham Junction). Bromley Council junked many of the ideas about making those streets limited permeability (the school there has a historical problem with terrible parking) because it might increase driving times for residents, adding on average 30 entire seconds to their journeys. In the end, they put in a 20-zone which I presume is still there.
Support the Great Surrey Bear Census 2020

Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #20 on: March 02, 2021, 04:13:09 pm »
As a once-upon-a-time regular user of black cabs (expenses, ah), they really don't do great PR for themselves, do they? I've mostly stopped doing Twitter since it's debate by pantomine, but I can't imagine they've got any better. I'd be happy to see them lose their entitlements and privileges and be treated like any other taxi service. Whoo, you know where the streets are in London. Super! So does Google. Ultimately, it's the last gasps of a dying industry.

I'm now trying to think of three railway underpasses between Croydon and Beckenham (I used to live between the two, by the train line from Crystal Palace to Beckenham Junction). Bromley Council junked many of the ideas about making those streets limited permeability (the school there has a historical problem with terrible parking) because it might increase driving times for residents, adding on average 30 entire seconds to their journeys. In the end, they put in a 20-zone which I presume is still there.

They're on my route to Beckenham Place Park which now has a very splendid lake for swimming - first is the little one on Holmesdale Road, then nip through Kent House station (admittedly that one is not a tunnel but it is a useful link albeit you're supposed to dismount if you're being  O:-)) and then there's a subway by New Beckenham station which I tend to avoid at night (not because anything's ever happened, I just try to avoid long underpasses after dark as a rule).

ian

  • feat. Undead Jess & Finestre, Queen of Hell
Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #21 on: March 02, 2021, 04:59:07 pm »
Ah, you're missing the little tunnel between Hambrook Road/Love Lane and Cambridge Road. That's very dark and possesses a strange attraction for supermarket trolleys. I used to live around the corner in one of those secret gated developments where they hold your soul hostage. That part of Bromley always struck me as ripe for small measures that would make cycling a lot nicer, though the council were mostly recalcitrant. Once over the border in Croydon, all bets were off. That's the borough of Mad Max.
Support the Great Surrey Bear Census 2020

Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #22 on: March 02, 2021, 05:38:44 pm »
Ah, you're missing the little tunnel between Hambrook Road/Love Lane and Cambridge Road. That's very dark and possesses a strange attraction for supermarket trolleys. I used to live around the corner in one of those secret gated developments where they hold your soul hostage. That part of Bromley always struck me as ripe for small measures that would make cycling a lot nicer, though the council were mostly recalcitrant. Once over the border in Croydon, all bets were off. That's the borough of Mad Max.

I'd considered that especially as a way to avoid Penge Road which is never pleasant especially going slowly uphill, but as you say it's very dark, which is offputting, and more often than not would involve squeezing past some form of flytipping (it was mattresses last time I went past). I also don't like the way you can't see round the corner (you can see straight through all the others so I know who's lurking about).

ian

  • feat. Undead Jess & Finestre, Queen of Hell
Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #23 on: March 02, 2021, 06:01:02 pm »
Indeed, I wouldn't recommend it, it's like a literal black hole between Croydon and Bromley. Our garden was next to the train embankment, probably 100 metres or so from there, I could have dug my own tunnel underneath. Admittedly into someone's garden. Not that when I lived there I needed the tunnel, but sometimes my extravagant route-finding from office to The Place Far South of Croydon that I now live takes me through the area. I mostly cycle through the cemetery (which opens at the bottom through Harrington Road tram stop). It avoids the horrors of Penge Road and though theoretically it closes in the evening, the gates always seemed to be open. No undead activity to report. It also avoids the herds of sex pests that graze in South Norwood Country Park.
Support the Great Surrey Bear Census 2020

Re: LTNs - BMJ article
« Reply #24 on: March 02, 2021, 06:10:39 pm »
I visited the LTNs in Cambridge  as part of a club visit to the Dutch roundabout.  It was great standing in the middle of the road with bikes and not looking out for a moton every few seconds.  Open to pedestrians , cyclists, and buses. They were through routes for these modes of transport.

They have also done the modal thing where the journey by car will be 2.5 miles but 400 metres if walking or cycling etc.  Plus parking at park and ride is free keeping cars mostly out of the centre.

Plus where a cycle track meets a road, the cycle track has priority. Plus traffic lights that recognise bikes and turn to green as you roll up. Non of this pedestrians crap of pressing the crossing button and then standing there a good few minutes as they prioritise motorised traffic.