THREAD: Today, between 1200-2500 people marched against #LTNs in Ealing. In doing so, they inadvertently demonstrated why they are essential.
In London, 36% of car journeys could be walked in under 25 mins. Human-powered transport is very space-efficient.
If the same amount of people had used cars at the London average occupancy rate (1.3), it would have looked something like this (pics represent approx. 923 or 1,923 cars). With 1m in between each car, this number would stretch nearly 7km or 14km of road - some traffic jam!
Of course, none of this will change if these vehicles become electric. They will still take up the same amount of space. In fact, the trend for vehicles is that they are becoming bigger. We cannot be fatalistic and assume anything to stop car usage will cause congestion.
LTNs not only improve conditions for pedestrians but they make it safer to cycle too. Safety is the #1 reason people say why they don't cycle more.
Astonishingly, two-thirds of car trips made by London residents could be cycled in under 19 mins. Source: london.gov.uk/sites/default/…
There were children at the front of the march with their parents. Those children, in a pedestrian-first environment, were safe and weren't likely to be in conflict with motor vehicles. How many of those parents would let their child play in the street without removing traffic?
I saw tweets saying there was a "good vibe" at the march and that's not surprising; streets where people can walk and cycle freely and interact with other humans generally feel more hospitable. Conversely, being sat in a car can disconnect you from the community outside.
The march started at 3pm; the video I shared in my first tweet was posted at 4:48pm. This accurately represents a "rush hour" window we might expect post-COVID. If all these people had travelled using cars - Ealing would have ground to a halt - as it has done, even before LTNs.
And this is just 1,200-2,500 people. Ealing has a population of 344,837 - so just 0.34%/0.72% were there.
Now, remember that 40% of journeys in Ealing are made by car. Not everyone will travel simultaneously, but it's very clear why we need to provide people transport options.
You may ask why I use two figures: 1,200 or 2,500. In the interests of balance, I want to state that One Ealing says that they had 2,500 people on the march. @BetterEaling claims it was 1,200.
I used to live in Ealing 10 years ago. The Uxbridge Road has always been congested. I lived on Gordon Road and worked next to Ealing studios; amazingly, before I saw the light I would sometimes drive that journey.
The current LTN setup would have changed my behaviour earlier.
When I did discover cycling for transport, I tried to use quiet streets. There were some - but it was still worrying to cycle on some of the roads which were used as race tracks. Before I even know what LTNs were, I ended up using roads I liked with decades old filters on.
Thinking about it, I owe a lot to Ealing's historic LTNs for getting me into transport cycling. And when I didn't fancy it, the Uxbridge Road's bus lanes gave fairly reliable trips too - except for weekends when car drivers would be able to park in the bus lanes.
Finally, I am not saying everything is perfect. And change is hard. But what's very clear is that just from a space efficiency perspective, we need way more people walking and cycling; LTNs are one of the most cost-effective options available to councils to do this quickly.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is the BBC's Environment Correspondent describing a video, widely shared by troll accounts, of a man shouting and swearing near families in a residential street as "brilliant".
This led to a one-sided piece on LTNs which was devoid of any fact-checking.
THREAD (1/18) 👇
I won't share the BBC video. I don't want to give it any more oxygen and reward the clickbait nature. If you really want to see it, you'll find it.
If you must watch the shouting man video, to see why this is inappropriate to be describing as "brilliant", it's here.
(2/18)
The report didn't mention the widely available data of LTNs, instead focusing on anecdotes and uncorroborated video clips - including one which seemed to use the Sarah Everard case to inflame the LTN debate; when in fact, the evidence shows crime reduction in LTNs.
I am an optimist. I have to be. And I so desperately want to be wrong but it is very clear to me that tomorrow’s @RBKC meeting tomorrow to decide on reinstating the Ken High St cycle lane is just public theatre on an already decided outcome. Short THREAD 👇
Like @betterstreetskc eloquently state, the report prepared for Councillors is riddled with errors, has important omissions and is framed through a lens of “man in the street” punditry, not hard available data, expert assessment or good policy.
The options provided to Cllrs to pursue are narrow and pointed towards Option 3 (which I believe they will take) to “develop plans to commission research” on future cycle schemes. This is a two-pronged and drawn out process of kicking any hope of safe cycling into the long grass.
THREAD: The need to enable active travel is not going away. It will only become more urgent as we fail to meet climate + pollution targets.
Every major political party’s manifesto wanted more cycling infrastructure; now is the time to stop using it for hyperlocal point scoring.
What’s more, the majority of people support it. Polls show 77% think more cycling would decrease congestion. Two thirds support road space reallocation for active travel.
Regardless of politic persuasion, people are more and more concerned about the environment.
A narrative of a “war on cars” or that cycle lanes somehow cause pollution is so incredibly niche that politicians on all sides risk alienating the lion’s share of normal voters with such vitriolic language. While forgetting that most people would enjoy cycling safely.
THREAD: A thread on research and sampling, and how the media use data and polling.
I can safely say from a decade of working with media, it is *highly* unusual for a newspaper to so heavily reference a self-selecting and homemade survey and present it as the views of all people.
Surveys with self-selecting samples, in this case, both from FairFuelUK + cycling advocates, should not be represented as the views of all of those groups; same goes for claiming data represents "Tory voters".
And that's without even mentioning the survey's leading questions.
Polls can make for really interesting stories and are commonplace in media. YouGov, a key player, vets the questions and ensures they don't lead, and gets answers from a statistically representative sample to reflect the views of all GB adults.
Today you might read that cycle lanes will have an impact on ambulance response times, which naturally sounds concerning. But the more you look into it, the more baseless it becomes; quotes from just one individual used by media with an agenda. (Thread)
A new phenomenon caused by hastily rushed through COVID measures, another thing to be concerned about in 2020?
Well, no, the same spokesperson @Richardwebber99 said the same thing in 2017, also to the Mail, about separated cycle lanes then. Concerns that never materialised.
When pushed, articles had to admit that there is no data that specific cycle lanes cause delays to ambulances.
None of the articles referenced that new cycle lanes were actually being used on 999 calls to cut past congestion caused by motor vehicles.