Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Unpublished TfL funded study seems to conclude LTNs are far from best way to promote cycling
A few weeks back, I read about a University of Westminster study, name Travel and Places, that TfL had funded which seems to have concluded that LTNS as they have been set up are far from being the best way of promoting cycling. For some reason it was never published and the only way I could get to see a copy was via an FOI request.
I don't have the time to go through it all, but am sharing it below for others that might have.
The study's "Key Takeaways" are:
- For every one unit increase in the Cyclability of the local environment, the likelihood of having cycled in the past week and past year increases by 60% and 38% respectively. The more cycling-friendly the environment is, the more cycling participants do.
- For the same one unit increase in local Cyclability, the likelihood of perceiving the local environment as unsafe for cycling in general decreases by 45%. The more cycling-friendly the local environment is, the safer it is perceived for cycling.
- For every one per cent increase in local roads with TfL Cycleways on them, the likelihood of that participant having cycled in the past week and past year increases by 6.4% and 8% respectively. The more TfL Cycleways near to one’s home, the more likely one is to cycle, even after accounting for all other aspects of Cyclability.
- For the same one per cent increase in roads with TfL Cycleways, the likelihood of perceiving the local environment as unsafe for cycling in general decreases by 11.9%. The more TfL Cycleways near to one’s home, the safer one perceives the local cycling environment.
- For every one per cent increase in local roads that are within an LTN, the likelihood of that participant having cycled in the past week increases by 3.2%, and the number of minutes cycled in that week increases by 1.6 minutes. Living in an area that is more connected to an LTN is associated with being more likely to cycle and for longer.
- For the same one per cent increase in roads that are within LTNs, the likelihood of perceiving the local environment as unsafe for cycling in general decreases by 2.1%.
- Attachments:
-
-
Travel & Places Folder.zip, 4.7 MB
-
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan
-
- Enforce 20mph limits.
- Deport cycle thieves.
LTNs are great for house values though right? Imagine how much houses on the ladder would be worth if it was access only and not a massive cut through.
-
Permalink Reply by AndrewAW1
-
Seems a bit of a Daily Mail style choice of post subject. Did many people think that LTNs were the best way of promoting cycling compared to building good quality cycle routes? An increase in cycling, which the study suggests happens, was a nice by-product of LTNs but I don't think many, if any, people thought it was the primary driver.
Plus it seems one of the reasons it wasn't published was the lack of underlying data to give confidence in the study so I wouldn't put too much weight on the conclusions:
A marked slowdown in the delivery of LTNs in London, which prevented achieving a sufficient sample size to undertake the main longitudinal analysis of the impact of LTNs on London residents’ travel behaviour. Following two ‘after’ waves where this analysis could not be completed due to sample size limitations and with no prospect of this trend changing it was deemed unjustifiable to maintain a project that could not deliver its main aim.
-
Permalink Reply by Hugh
-
Presenting, with barely any comment, a full study that was conducted by a respected academic institution is Daily Mail style? Really? Which version of the Daily Mail have you been reading?!
-
-
It was your subject
Unpublished TfL funded study seems to conclude LTNs are far from best way to promote cycling
That struck me as strange. Firstly as no one has claimed they are the best way to promote cycling. Secondly as the report wasn't published in part due to lack of quality data.
-
-
Benefitting active travel (including cycling), is one of the most oft-cited benefits of LTNs. Our borough does it, I’m not saying that such links don’t exist and I’m not against LTNs. I’m just explaining why it’s pertinent to draw attention to this study.
-
-
Can you point to the section of the report that concludes "LTNs are far from best way to promote cycling" ?
Because (notwithstanding the data quality issue noted by Andrew above) the summary that you included in your original post doesn't support that view, and instead suggests a reasonable degree of confidence that living in or near an LTN increases cycling and perception of cycling safety.
Evidently proper cycling infrastructure is going to attract a greater number of cyclists, but LTNs provide an opportunity to incorporate quieter streets into a journey where this does not yet exist - particularly pertinent in Haringey which seems to have fallen far behind neighbouring boroughs with implementation of safer cycling routes.
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter
-
THIS unpublished survey would be welcomed by the Reform Party, some car owners and of course, the anti-LTN Tottenham Conservatives.
If LTNs are not the best way to promote cycling—which is not the conclusion of the poor quality draft survey results—then I'd like to see more effort put into finding the best ways to promote walking and cycling. In Haringey, Active Travel efforts have stalled, due to desiccated political will.
———
I'm not persuaded the takeaways cited were easy, let alone Key takeaways.
Takeaways of one per cent increases and one unit increases are metrics that I for one find hard to takeaway. In my view they should be taken away from public view!
The survey was unpublished for good reasons (below). The inability to summarise survey results clearly and intelligibly is surely a failure. That the methodology was weird is in effect, conceded in what appears to be the conclusion. My own Takeaway is from the survey itself. In the direct quote below, I have highlighted what in my view are the Master Key takeaways:
——
In addition to the discontinuation of the research, the Strategic Analysis team managing the study (in consultation with Strategy & Planning colleagues) also decided in spring 2024 not to publish any of the research completed so far. This again responded to several reasons:
o Primarily, to the fact that the wave reports are lengthy, highly technical documents full of jargon that are not accessible to the general public and that to publish them on public-facing TfL channels would have required a huge amount of time and resources to adapt them to meet TfL’s statutory and non-statutory editorial guidelines, which would have hardly been justified when weighted against the expected benefits of the publication.
o Secondly, to the general lack of useful or innovative insights arising from the study, as mentioned above. There did not seem to be much gain for either the public or TfL in publishing information that is not very conclusive, that only replicates or confirms trends that are known and discussed elsewhere, or that TfL cannot readily use to improve the way it operates. In fact, publishing such information could arguably have the opposite effect of creating confusion. On this point it is useful to note that ‘not publishing inconclusive analysis unless it helps tell a coherent story’ is a common way of working by analysist in all fields and that TfL does publish a lot of insights (in this and other topics) when these are relevant and useful. See for example the summary of evidence titled The impacts of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods in London or the Travel in London reports.
o Finally, to the also mentioned decrease in the level of interest in this topic, leading to the organisational priorities and and in turn the resource allocation being shifted away from this work.
© 2025 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
